linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/6] tty: implement write

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: <4ade6b19-dc9e-ef72-dcca-1ddaa8d6c5fd@kernel.org>
Date:   Fri, 22 Jan 2021 08:33:33 +0100
From:   Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     linux-serial@...r.kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Oliver Giles <ohw.giles@...il.com>,
        Robert Karszniewicz <r.karszniewicz@...tec.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] tty: implement write_iter

On 21. 01. 21, 19:42, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 9:57 AM Greg Kroah-Hartman
> <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>
>> Incremental patches please as these are already in my public branches
>> and I would have to revert them and add new ones but that's messy, so
>> fixes on top is fine.
> 
> Ok. And since I think you put that first tty_write conversion patch in
> a different branch from the tty_read one, I did the fixup patches for
> the two as separate patches, even though they really just do the exact
> same thing.
> 
> So here's three patches: the two fixups for the hung_up_tty case, and
> the EOVERFLOW error case that Jiri also noted. I've also updated the
> 'tty-splice' branch if you prefer them that way.
> 
> And I *should* say that I still haven't tested _any_ of the HDLC
> changes. I have no idea how to do that, and if somebody can point to a
> test-case (or better yet, actually has a real life situation where
> they use it and can test this all) it would be great.
> 
> Jiri, any other issues, or any comment of yours I missed? I didn't do
> the min() thing, I find the explicit conditional more legible myself,
> but won't complain if somebody else then disagrees and wants to clean
> it up.

I cannot find anything else.

All three:
Reviewed-by: Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>

thanks,
-- 
js