linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] s390/pkey: Use memdup_user() rather than duplicating its implementation

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <733b29df-207e-a165-ee80-46be8720c0c4@de.ibm.com>
Date:   Thu, 7 Nov 2019 14:54:53 +0100
From:   Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
To:     Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
        Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
        Harald Freudenberger <freude@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
        Ingo Franzki <ifranzki@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, Kangjie Lu <kjlu@....edu>,
        Navid Emamdoost <emamd001@....edu>,
        Stephen McCamant <smccaman@....edu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] s390/pkey: Use memdup_user() rather than duplicating
 its implementation



On 07.11.19 14:45, Markus Elfring wrote:
>>> Reuse existing functionality from memdup_user() instead of keeping
>>> duplicate source code.
>>>
>>> Generated by: scripts/coccinelle/api/memdup_user.cocci
>>>
>>> Delete local variables which became unnecessary with this refactoring
>>> in two function implementations.
>>>
>>> Fixes: f2bbc96e7cfad3891b7bf9bd3e566b9b7ab4553d ("s390/pkey: add CCA AES cipher key support")
>>
>> With that patch description, the Fixes tag is wrong...but (see below)
> 
> I wonder about such a conclusion together with your subsequent feedback.

Please try to read and understand what other people write. My point was that your
patch description only talks about refactoring and avoiding code duplication.
So you do not claim to have fixed anything. You claim to have refactored things
to avoid code duplication. And no, refactoring is NOT a fix.

That fact that you fix a bug was obviously just by accident. So you have not even
noticed that your change was actually chaning the logical flow of the code. 

Now: When you change the patch description explaining what you fix, a Fixes tag is
appropriate.