linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] arch/x86: Check return value from a notify

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 22 Jun 2020 08:50:59 +0200
From:   Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To:     Bo YU <tsu.yubo@...il.com>, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Alexandre Chartre <alexandre.chartre@...cle.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arch/x86: Check return value from a notify_die() call

>>> This is detected by Coverity scan: #CID: 1464472(CHECKED_RETURN)

Can an additional imperative wording be helpful for the change description
(besides an adjusted patch subject)?


>>> FIXES: c94082656dac7(x86: Use enum instead of literals for trap values)
>>
>> Is the following tag specification more appropriate?
>>
>> Fixes: c94082656dac7 ("x86: Use enum instead of literals for trap values")
> Your description looks like more appropriate, thank you.

Thanks for your positive feedback.


> But I want to receive suggestions from other reviewers also. So I will
> send V2 patch as your point once got confirmed. Sorry.

Should the confirmation be sufficient from the available software documentation?
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst?id=625d3449788f85569096780592549d0340e9c0c7#n183

I am curious if this patch review will clarify more aspects.

Regards,
Markus