linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] fs/resctrl: Convert lock to guard

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: <e250561d-8553-46c1-a285-ddad10a15ee6@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2025 10:34:05 -0700
From: Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>
To: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>, Erick Karanja
	<karanja99erick@...il.com>
CC: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, <tony.luck@...el.com>,
	<julia.lawall@...ia.fr>, <james.morse@....com>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs/resctrl: Convert lock to guard



On 9/3/25 7:37 AM, Dave Martin wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> You seem already to have been told that patches of this sort are
> unlikely to be helpful.  Greg summed it up pretty well, e.g. [1], [2].
> 
> 
> With regard to this specific patch:
> 
> On Wed, Sep 03, 2025 at 03:20:15PM +0300, Erick Karanja wrote:
>> Convert manual lock/unlock calls to guard and tidy up the code.
> 
> The very first sentence under "Describe your changes"
> in submitting-patches.rst is: "Describe your problem."
> 
> So, what problem is being addressed by this patch?
> 
>> Generated-by: Coccinelle SmPL
>> Signed-off-by: Erick Karanja <karanja99erick@...il.com>
> 
> Coccinelle is a powerful tool, but ultimately somebody has to take
> responsibility for the correctness of the output.  How have you
> verified that the result is correct?
> 
> Also, this is a lot of diffstat for what is really just a change of
> coding style that fixes nothing (or at least, you don't claim that it
> fixes anything).
> 
> While all contributions are welcome, they do need to deliver a net
> benefit.

Well said. Thanks Dave.

> 
> I can't speak for the maintainers, but given the pain that they would
> likely have fixing up all the merge conflicts that this patch would
> cause, I think that the benefit would need to be substantial.

There just happened to be a similar change suggested for SGX that provides
insight into x86 maintainers' view that I fully agree with:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/d9a76e90-7723-49ee-b3ec-85c7533d8023@intel.com/

> 
> 
> If you found actual bugs as part of this process, then that would
> definitely be worth looking at (?)

ack.

Reinette