linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/8] memset() in crypto 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CACXcFmmNjSNMm4WjKUENhfzq7TrTF7eOzx5fCXQHgg9wQSu5cA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 17 Nov 2021 10:36:55 +0800
From:   Sandy Harris <sandyinchina@...il.com>
To:     Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Crypto Mailing List <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] memset() in crypto code

Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu> wrote:

> I see no point in doing 8 separate patches that all have the same
> subject and the exact same light description.
>
> I think it would be better to have a single patch with all the changes,
> and use the cover letter description as description for that patch.

It seemed better to me to have separate patches because there
are 8 files involved, possibly each with a different maintainer.

Likely I should have gone further & included the filenames in
the subject: lines & maintainer addresses in cc: