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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <62ff53e5-32d0-0440-045d-881350b2e6cd@web.de>
Date:   Fri, 29 May 2020 12:09:06 +0200
From:   Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To:     Qiushi Wu <wu000273@....edu>, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
        open-iscsi@...glegroups.com
Cc:     kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Chris Leech <cleech@...hat.com>,
        "James E. J. Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Kangjie Lu <kjlu@....edu>, Lee Duncan <lduncan@...e.com>,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scsi: Fix reference count leak in
 iscsi_boot_create_kobj()

> kobject_init_and_add() should be handled when it return an error,
> because kobject_init_and_add() takes reference even when it fails.

I find this wording approach improvable.


> Previous commit "b8eb718348b8" fixed a similar problem.

I suggest to omit this information from the commit message.


> Thus replace calling kfree() by calling kobject_put().

How do you think about a wording variant like the following?

   Thus replace a call of the function “kfree” by “kobject_put”
   because of using kernel objects in the proper way.


Please take another look also at the message field “To”.
Which recipients should be specified there first?

Regards,
Markus

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ