linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Improved hfsplus in the kernel

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: <20250225205941.GA2023217@ZenIV>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2025 20:59:41 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To: Pranjal Prasad <prasadpranjal213@...il.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Improved hfsplus in the kernel

On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 02:00:36AM +0530, Pranjal Prasad wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Please find attached the patch to improve the HFS+ filesystem support in the
> kernel. I have not done much work, but as I require HFS, HFS+, and APFS in
> Linux, I decided to maintain it. Please allow me to be the maintainer of HFS
> and HFS+ in the kernel.

Umm...  "Improved" is not a description - it's marketdroidese.
And comments are supposed to help understanding why we are doing
something, not retelling what's being done in every line.
Being more verbose is no virtue - not when it adds no information.

What's more worrying, though...  are there actual changes in
that pile of added comments?  Your "improved and added comments"
would seem to imply that these had been two distinct things,
so it sounds like there are actual modifications involved.

In such case you really should separate those rather than
burying them.

And this "every line must come with a comment, no matter how useful it is"
is a habit best unlearnt.  I realize that a bunch of places teach that,
but it's a really, really bad idea.