linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] module: some refactoring in module_sig

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:   Wed, 14 Oct 2020 13:48:36 -0700
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     Sergey Shtylyov <s.shtylyov@...russia.ru>,
        Jessica Yu <jeyu@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] module: some refactoring in module_sig_check()

On Wed, 2020-10-14 at 22:44 +0300, Sergey Shtylyov wrote:
> On 10/14/20 11:35 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
> 
> [...]
> > > > > Here are 2 patches against the 'modules-next' branch of Jessica Yu's 'linux.git' repo.
> > > > > I'm doing some little refactoring in module_sig_check()...
> > > > > 
> > > > > [1/2] module: merge repetitive strings in module_sig_check()
> > > > > [2/2] module: unindent comments in module_sig_check()
> > > > 
> > > > I think this code is rather cryptic and could be made clearer.
> > > > 
> > > > How about:
> > > > ---
> > > >   kernel/module.c | 51 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------------
> > > >   1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > >     Looks good. Do you want to post complete patch(es)? :-)
> > 
> > I don't like posting actual patches on top of other people.
> > It's a complete and compilable diff, it's just unsigned.
> 
>    It does too many things simultaneously, I'll need to decompose it...
> 
> > If you want a Signed-off-by: here's one:
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
> 
>    I think I'll rather use Suggested-by: where appropriate...

I don't think it does too many things and I'm not
a big fan of micro-patches, but no worries, do what
you want to it.

I just thought the code poor and a bit unreadable
given the internal goto in a switch/case block.