linux-kernel - Re: 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: <8f98f9fc-57df-5993-44b5-5ea4c0de7ef9@web.de>
Date:   Thu, 7 Nov 2019 15:27:33 +0100
From:   Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To:     Christian Bornträger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
        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: s390/pkey: Use memdup_user() rather than duplicating its
 implementation

>>>> 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.

I am also trying as usual.


> My point was that your patch description only talks about refactoring
> and avoiding code duplication.

These implementation details are mentioned.


> So you do not claim to have fixed anything.

We have got a different understanding for the provided wording.


> You claim to have refactored things to avoid code duplication.

The reused code can reduce the probability for programming mistakes,
can't it?


> And no, refactoring is NOT a fix.

Software development opinions vary around such a view, don't they?


> That fact that you fix a bug was obviously just by accident.

I can follow this view to some degree.


> So you have not even noticed that your change was actually chaning
> the logical flow of the code.

I suggested to improve two function implementations.


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

Can such a disagreement be resolved by adding the information
to the change description that an incomplete exception handling
(which can trigger a memory leak) should be replaced by hopefully
better functionality?

Regards,
Markus