linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/7] stm class: Replace uuid

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: <YHgClKj6FNDQoqem@kroah.com>
Date:   Thu, 15 Apr 2021 11:08:36 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc:     Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] stm class: Replace uuid_t with plain u8 uuid[16]

On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 11:48:48AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 11:35 AM Greg Kroah-Hartman
> <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 10:14:34PM +0300, Alexander Shishkin wrote:
> > > Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> writes:
> > >
> > > >> Using raw buffer APIs against uuid_t / guid_t.
> > > >
> > > > So you want to do that, or you do not want to do that?  Totally
> > > > confused,
> > >
> > > My understanding is that:
> > > 1) generate_random_uuid() use is allegedly bad even though it's in their
> > > header,
> > > 2) poking directly at the byte array inside uuid_t is bad, even though,
> > > again, header.
> > >
> > > It is, indeed, not ideal.
> > >
> > > If agreeable, I'll update this patch to the below and respin the whole
> > > series.
> >
> > You are showing that Andy wrote this, when you are the one that did :(
> 
> > Anyway, I've dropped this single patch from the series and applied the
> > rest.  Feel free to send this patch as a stand-alone one once you have
> > the authorship issues sorted out.
> 
> Internally it was proposed by me as well, so authorship is correct.

And I am supposed to know this how?

Come on people, you know better than this...