linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] crypto: aes_generic: fixed styling warnings

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:   Mon, 28 Mar 2022 07:51:37 -0500
From:   Paul Lemmermann <thepaulodoom@...paulodoom.com>
To:     Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
Cc:     davem@...emloft.net, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] crypto: aes_generic: fixed styling warnings

On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 09:39:14AM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> (please keep the cc's)
> 
> On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 at 00:46, Paul Lemmermann
> <thepaulodoom@...paulodoom.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Mar 27, 2022 at 01:41:19PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > > On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 at 18:48, Paul Lemmermann
> > > <thepaulodoom@...paulodoom.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Fixed all styling warnings from the checkpatch.pl script.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Paul Lemmermann <thepaulodoom@...paulodoom.com>
> > >
> > > Did you test this code after 'fixing' it?
> > >
> > No, I did not. Now that I scrutinized it a bit more, I realized the
> > kernel coding conventions. Sorry about that, this is my first patch.
> 
> In that case, welcome!
> 
> This is not about coding conventions. This is about correctness.
> 
> For instance,
> 
> > > >
> > > > -#define f_nround(bo, bi, k)    do {\
> > > > +#define f_nround(bo, bi, k)    while (0) {\
> > > >         f_rn(bo, bi, 0, k);     \
> > > >         f_rn(bo, bi, 1, k);     \
> > > >         f_rn(bo, bi, 2, k);     \
> > > >         f_rn(bo, bi, 3, k);     \
> > > >         k += 4;                 \
> > > > -} while (0)
> > > > +}
> > > >
> 
> Why are you making this change, and why do you think it produces the
> same result?
> 
> > Can you remove everything in the patch past the section with line
> > 1144, or do I have to resubit the patch?
> >
> 
> checkpatch.pl is a useful tool for finding style issues, but please
> use it with care. And changing decades old code just to fix issues
> reported by checkpatch.pl is really just pointless churn.
> 
> So let's just drop this patch altogether, shall we? If you're
> interested in helping out, please have a look at the staging/ tree -
> there is a lot of code there that needs cleaning up.
> 
Yes, we can drop the patch. Thank you so much for your help and support.
Looking forward to contributing more to the Linux kernel.

Thanks,
Paul