linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] selinux: Fix potential counting error in avc_add_xperms

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: <069f3a84-eb29-5f6c-7343-f837d9e96fff@huaweicloud.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2024 21:20:41 +0800
From: "Leizhen (ThunderTown)" <thunder.leizhen@...weicloud.com>
To: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>,
 Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@...wei.com>, selinux@...r.kernel.org,
 Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@...hat.com>, Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>,
 Stephen Smalley <stephen.smalley.work@...il.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Jeff Vander Stoep
 <jeffv@...gle.com>, Nick Kralevich <nnk@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] selinux: Fix potential counting error in
 avc_add_xperms_decision()



On 2024/8/7 20:06, Markus Elfring wrote:
>>>>> The count increases only when a node is successfully added to
>>>>> the linked list.
>>>>
>>>> 1. Please improve such a change description with an imperative wording.
>>>>    https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst?h=v6.11-rc2#n94
>>> Ok, I'll try to improve it.
>> I see this patch has been merged into selinux/stable-6.11.
> 
> Interesting …
It's not surprising. Because maintainers deal with programmers in many countries,
they will find over time that some programmers write descriptions that are not
pleasing to the eye, not his intention, but poor English. So step back, as long
as the patch is correct and clearly describes why it's done, it's enough. It's
not a bad thing to be more inclusive of others.

> 
> 
>> So I decided not to change it, and I re-examined it,
> 
> Further collateral evolution can become more helpful,
> can't it?
> 
> 
>> and it seems that there is no problem you mentioned.
> 
> There are obviously different preferences involved for patch review processes.
> 
> Regards,
> Markus
> .
> 

-- 
Regards,
  Zhen Lei