linux-kernel - Re: [Ksummit-discuss] crediting bug reports and fixes folded into original patch

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: <20201209103026.GF2767@kadam>
Date:   Wed, 9 Dec 2020 13:30:26 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc:     "ksummit-discuss@...ts.linuxfoundation.org" 
        <ksummit-discuss@...ts.linuxfoundation.org>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] crediting bug reports and fixes folded into
 original patch

On Wed, Dec 09, 2020 at 12:54:30AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Wed, 2020-12-09 at 10:58 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 08, 2020 at 09:01:49PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2020-12-08 at 16:34 -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> > > 
> > > > If not "Adjusted-by", what about "Tweaked-by", "Helped-by",
> > > > "Corrected-by"?
> > > 
> > > Improved-by: / Enhanced-by: / Revisions-by: 
> > > 
> > 
> > I don't think we should give any credit for improvements or enhancements,
> > only for fixes.
> 
> Hey Dan.
> 
> I do.  If a patch isn't comprehensive and a reviewer notices some
> missing coverage or algorithmic performance enhancement, I think that
> should be noted.
> 
> > Complaining about style is its own reward.
> 
> <chuckle, maybe so. I view it more like coaching...>
> 
> I believe I've said multiple times that style changes shouldn't require
> additional commentary added to a patch.
> 
> I'm not making any suggestion to comment for style, only logic or defect
> reduction/improvements as described above.

How about we make the standard, "Would this fix be backported to stable?"

> 
> > Having to redo a patch is already a huge headache.  Normally, I already
> > considered the reviewer's prefered style and decided I didn't like it.
> 
> Example please.  We both seem to prefer consistent style.
> 

For example, if you have a signedness bugs:

 	ret = frob(unsigned_long_size);
-	if (ret < unsigned_long_size)
+	if (ret < 0 || ret < unsigned_long_size)
vs:
+	if (ret < (int)unsigned_long_size)
		goto whatever;

To me, whoever fixes the bug gets to choose their prefered style but
maybe some reviewers have strong feelings one way or the other.

> > Then to make me redo the patch in an ugly style and say thank you on
> > top of that???  Forget about it.
> 
> Not a thing I've asked for.
> 
> >  Plus, as a reviewer I hate reviewing patches over and over.
> 
> interdiff could be improved.
> 
> > I've argued for years that we should have a Fixes-from: tag.  The zero
> > day bot is already encouraging people to add Reported-by tags for this
> > and a lot of people do.
> 
> It's still a question of what fixes means in any context.
> 
> https://www.google.com/search?q=%27fixes-from%3A%27%20carpenter%20site%3Alore.kernel.org
> gives:
> It looks like there aren't many great matches for your search
> 

No, I mean people add Reported-by tags for fixes to the original commit
like in commit f026d8ca2904 ("igc: add support to eeprom, registers and
link self-tests").

regards,
dan carpenter