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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230319141145.GE36557@unreal>
Date:   Sun, 19 Mar 2023 16:11:45 +0200
From:   Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
To:     Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
Cc:     kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
        Bernard Metzler <bmt@...ich.ibm.com>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>, cocci@...ia.fr,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] RDMA/siw: Fix exception handling in siw_accept_newconn()

On Sun, Mar 19, 2023 at 02:38:03PM +0100, Markus Elfring wrote:
> >> Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2023 20:30:12 +0100
> >>
> >> The label “error” was used to jump to another pointer check despite of
> >> the detail in the implementation of the function “siw_accept_newconn”
> >> that it was determined already that corresponding variables contained
> >> still null pointers.
> >>
> >> 1. Use more appropriate labels instead.
> >>
> >> 2. Delete two questionable checks.
> >>
> >> 3. Omit extra initialisations (for the variables “new_cep” and “new_s”)
> >>    which became unnecessary with this refactoring.
> >>
> >> This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software.
> >>
> >> Fixes: 6c52fdc244b5ccc468006fd65a504d4ee33743c7 ("rdma/siw: connection management")
> >> Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
> >> ---
> >>  drivers/infiniband/sw/siw/siw_cm.c | 32 ++++++++++++++----------------
> >>  1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
> > Please read Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst and resubmit.
> > Your patch is not valid.
> 
> 
> What do you find improvable here?

Did you read the guide above?

1. The patch is malformed and doesn't appear in lore and patchworks.
2. "Date ..." in the middle of patch
3. Wrong Fixes line.
4. Patch contains too much and too different things at the same time.

Thanks

> 
> Regards,
> Markus
> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ