linux-kernel - Re: [patch 00/10] x86/fpu: Clean up error handling in sigframe related code

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: <878s0ihikr.ffs@tglx>
Date:   Mon, 30 Aug 2021 20:51:32 +0200
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [patch 00/10] x86/fpu: Clean up error handling in sigframe
 related code

On Mon, Aug 30 2021 at 10:39, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 9:27 AM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
>>
>> The following series cleans this up. As a side effect the resulting text
>> size of fpu/signal.o shrinks by about 150 bytes.
>
> Well, some of the patches in the middle were confusing because of how
> 0/ERROR was mixing with a success true/false thing, but the end result
> seems to be a whole lot more sensible.

Yes, I know. I tried various approaches but they mostly ended up being
unreviewable because they changed too many things at once.

So at the end I went for this step wise approach which seemed to be
manageable at least for my restricted brain capacity.

Thanks,

        tglx