linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] gpio-hammer: Avoid potential overflow in main

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: <55db9307-9a20-239e-127c-ea043600248d@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 12 Mar 2020 15:33:08 +0100
From:   Gabriel Ravier <gabravier@...il.com>
To:     Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>
Cc:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        linux-gpio <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpio-hammer: Avoid potential overflow in main

Ah, seems like I didn't read the guide to getting code into the kernel 
thoroughly enough. Should I send the patch yet again just with a v2 in 
the subject header or is there no need to bother with that ?

On 3/12/20 3:29 PM, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> czw., 12 mar 2020 o 15:21 Gabriel Ravier <gabravier@...il.com> napisał(a):
>> Ah, that was accidental. I was applying scripts/Lindent to my code and
>> ended up also having it applied to part of the old code. Didn't think it
>> would hurt, but I guess it makes sense to be this stringent on
>> separating logical changes. Will send a (complete) corrected patch
>> in-reply-to this message.
>>
> Please don't send patches in response to other threads. Always start a
> new thread and increment the version in [PATCH vX] tag.
>
> Bart