linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Fix comment style of `do_execveat

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <hsnabzbrvgpng7rsxpgcjaggiwaenrgwsi2u7spfbypbfraymu@7h5dxvkq64hz>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2025 15:58:37 +0200
From: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To: Cabbaken Q <Cabbaken@...look.com>
Cc: Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>, 
	"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>, 
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, 
	Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix comment style of `do_execveat_common()`

On Mon 14-04-25 07:07:57, Cabbaken Q wrote:
> From 46fab5ecc860f26f790bec2a902a54bae58dfca7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Ruoyu Qiu <cabbaken@...look.com>
> Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2025 14:56:28 +0800
> Subject: [PATCH] Fix comment style of `do_execveat_common()`
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ruoyu Qiu <cabbaken@...look.com>

Thanks for the patch but I think fixing one extra space in a comment isn't
really worth the effort of all the people involved in handling a patch.

								Honza

> ---
>  fs/exec.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/exec.c b/fs/exec.c
> index 8e4ea5f1e64c..51dad7af5083 100644
> --- a/fs/exec.c
> +++ b/fs/exec.c
> @@ -1903,7 +1903,7 @@ static int do_execveat_common(int fd, struct filename *filename,
>       /*
>        * We move the actual failure in case of RLIMIT_NPROC excess from
>        * set*uid() to execve() because too many poorly written programs
> -      * don't check setuid() return code.  Here we additionally recheck
> +      * don't check setuid() return code. Here we additionally recheck
>        * whether NPROC limit is still exceeded.
>        */
>       if ((current->flags & PF_NPROC_EXCEEDED) &&
> --
> 2.49.0
> 
> 
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>
SUSE Labs, CR