linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/7] remove pointers from struct hal

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sat, 11 Sep 2021 12:50:15 +0200
From:   "Fabio M. De Francesco" <fmdefrancesco@...il.com>
To:     gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        Michael Straube <straube.linux@...il.com>
Cc:     Larry.Finger@...inger.net, phil@...lpotter.co.uk, martin@...ser.cx,
        linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] remove pointers from struct hal_ops

On Saturday, September 11, 2021 12:24:09 PM CEST Michael Straube wrote:
> On 9/11/21 11:38, Fabio M. De Francesco wrote:
> > [...]
> > Hi Michael,
> > 
> > This series is good.
> > 
> > Furthermore, I compiled the whole series with gcc version 11.2.1 2020816
> > [revision 056e324ce46a7924b5cf10f61010cf9dd2ca10e9] (SUSE Linux) one
> > patch at a time. There are no errors or warnings at any time in any of 
the
> > seven builds.
> > 
> > But, unfortunately, I have no time to test. So the whole series is...
> > 
> > Acked-by: Fabio M. De Francesco <fmdefrancesco@...il.com>
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > 
> > Fabio
> 
> Hi Fabio,
> 
> thank you for the review. I have tested it on x86_64 with
> Inter-Tech DMG-02 connected to a CCMP network without any
> issues.
> 
> Perhaps I should have mentioned that in the cover letter. ;)
> 

I see Greg sometimes asks "how did you test it?" when he notices that the 
developers don't say so explicitly. I guess he wants to know this whenever 
changes have the potential to interrupt or alter the proper functioning of 
drivers in ways that aren't clearly identifiable by just reading the code.

I think not all changes require testing. However, I guess it's best to play 
it safe and say if and how you did the tests.

Thanks,

Fabio

> Thanks,
> 
> Michael
>