linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 2/7] lib/stackdepot: Move stack_record struct definition into the header

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2024 09:22:39 +0100
From: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>
To: Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
	Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...il.com>,
	Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 2/7] lib/stackdepot: Move stack_record struct
 definition into the header

On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 09:16:58AM +0100, Marco Elver wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 at 18:00, Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de> wrote:
> > -/* The pool_index is offset by 1 so the first record does not have a 0 handle. */
> > +/* The pool_index is offset by 1 so the first record does not have a 0 handle */
> 
> Why this comment change? We lost the '.' -- for future reference, it'd
> be good to ensure unnecessary changes don't creep into the diff. This
> is just nitpicking, and I've already reviewed this change, so no need
> to send a v+1.

Right, this was an oversight.

Andrew, please fold the following into the patch, thanks:

diff --git a/lib/stackdepot.c b/lib/stackdepot.c
index 4a661a6777da..514b8d40ff57 100644
--- a/lib/stackdepot.c
+++ b/lib/stackdepot.c
@@ -37,7 +37,7 @@
 #include <linux/kasan-enabled.h>

 #define DEPOT_POOLS_CAP 8192
-/* The pool_index is offset by 1 so the first record does not have a 0 handle */
+/* The pool_index is offset by 1 so the first record does not have a 0 handle. */
 #define DEPOT_MAX_POOLS \
 	(((1LL << (DEPOT_POOL_INDEX_BITS)) - 1 < DEPOT_POOLS_CAP) ? \
 	 (1LL << (DEPOT_POOL_INDEX_BITS)) - 1 : DEPOT_POOLS_CAP)

-- 
Oscar Salvador
SUSE Labs