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]
Message-ID: <20180107163008.4ddd0c79@elisabeth>
Date:   Sun, 7 Jan 2018 16:30:08 +0100
From:   Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@...hat.com>
To:     SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, Bhumika Goyal <bhumirks@...il.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        David Windsor <dwindsor@...il.com>,
        Elena Reshetova <elena.reshetova@...el.com>,
        Hans Liljestrand <ishkamiel@...il.com>,
        Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@...el.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: atm/clip: Use seq_puts() in svc_addr()

On Sun, 7 Jan 2018 09:19:17 +0100
SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net> wrote:

> >> Two strings should be quickly put into a sequence by two function calls.
> >> Thus use the function "seq_puts" instead of "seq_printf".
> >>
> >> This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software.  
> > 
> > Can you please explain what the issue really is and what you're trying
> > to do here?  
> 
> Is the function "seq_puts" a bit more efficient for the desired output
> of a single string in comparison to calling the function "seq_printf"
> for this purpose?

Will you please be so kind and tell us?

> > One shouldn't need to dig into Coccinelle patterns to find
> > out what you mean,  
> 
> Why did an attribution for a software tool confuse you?

I'm not confused. I'm saying that one shouldn't need to dig into
Coccinelle patterns to find out what you mean.

> > and "strings should be quickly put into a sequence"
> > isn't terribly helpful.  
> 
> Which wording would you find more appropriate for the suggested
> adjustment of these function calls?

Whatever describes the actual issue and what you're doing about it.
Turn your rhetorical question above into a commit message, done.

Compare that with your original commit message, on the other hand,
and you should understand what I mean.

-- 
Stefano

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ