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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2022 17:39:43 +1000 From: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com> To: Shida Zhang <starzhangzsd@...il.com> Cc: djwong@...nel.org, dchinner@...hat.com, zhangshida@...inos.cn, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] xfs: add check before calling xfs_mod_fdblocks On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 03:02:24PM +0800, Shida Zhang wrote: > Checks are missing when delta equals 0 in __xfs_ag_resv_free() and > __xfs_ag_resv_init(). This describes what the patch does, not the problem being solved is. i.e. This doesn't tell the reader why the delta can be zero in these places, nor does it tell them what the impact of it being zero is. We can't use this information to identify a system that is having problems due to this issue because they havent' been described. Hence when I ask for more detail about how something occurs, what I'm asking for is a description of the how the problem was found, what the impact of the problem has on systems, how the problem is reproduced, etc. Something led you to finding this problem - tell us the story so we also know what you know and so can understand why the change needs to be made. A good commit description tells the reader everything you know about the problem that needs to be fixed, the code change itself will then describe how the problem was fixed... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@...morbit.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists