linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] x86/purgatory: Make sure we fail the build if purgatory.ro has missing symbols

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]

Date:   Thu, 12 Mar 2020 15:25:53 +0100
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:     Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>
Cc:     Arvind Sankar <nivedita@...m.mit.edu>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] x86/purgatory: Make sure we fail the build if
 purgatory.ro has missing symbols

On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 02:34:30PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Which is why I have been fixing the issues which the 0day bot finds,
> but then I get complaints about reving the patch set to quickly...

So here's what I'm seeing: patchsets get sent and 0day bot finds an
issue almost each time. Which tells me, this patchset doesn't look ready.

I suggested you to do "make randconfig" builds to find those breakages
yourself but if you prefer 0day bot to do that, that's fine too.

> In my experience once a patch-set has a maintainers attention,
> quickly fixing any issues found usually is the right approach.
> Because then usually it can get merged quickly and both the maintainer
> and I can move on to other stuff. I'm sorry if you are finding this
> annoying.

My experience shows that almost always there's an aspect where both the
submitter and the maintainer haven't thought about and hurrying stuff
makes it worse. That's why I prefer stuff to be hammered out and tested
properly and *then* applied.

> TBH I'm quite unhappy that I'm being "yelled" at now (or so it
> feels) while all I'm doing is trying to fix a long standing issue :(

What in my reply made you feel you're being "yelled" at?

> No not ok, I'm doing my best to help make things better here and
> in return I'm getting what feels as a bunch of negativity and that
> is NOT ok!

I have no clue what in my replies made you feel that. Please explain.
How should I have replied so that it doesn't come across negative?

> Now as how to move forward with this, I suggest that:
> 
> 1) We wait a bit to see if the 0daybot finds any more existing issues
> which are exposed by my patch
> 
> 2) Change my patch to check for missing symbols to use the approach
> which Arvind has suggested
> 
> 3) Check that "kexec -l <kernel>" + "kexec -e" still work
> 
> 4) Post v6.

5) Wait for 0day bot to chew on it too.

> Does that work for you ?

Yes, sounds ok.

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette