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  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]
Date:   Mon, 11 May 2020 08:48:21 +0200
From:   Markus Elfring <>
To:     Finn Thain <>,
        Christophe Jaillet <>,
        "David S. Miller" <>,
        Jakub Kicinski <>
Subject: Re: net/sonic: Fix some resource leaks in error handling paths

> If you can't determine when the bug was introduced,

I might be able to determine also this information.

> how can you criticise a patch for the lack of a Fixes tag?

I dared to point two details out for the discussed patch.

>> To which commit would you like to refer to for the proposed adjustment
>> of the function “mac_sonic_platform_probe”?
> That was my question to you. We seem to be talking past each other.

We come along different views for this patch review.
Who is going to add a possible reference for this issue?

> My preference is unimportant here.

It is also relevant here because you added the tag “Reviewed-by”.

> I presume that you mean to assert that Christophe's patch
> breaches the style guide.

I propose to take such a possibility into account.

> However, 'sonic_probe1' is the name of a function.

The discussed source file does not contain such an identifier.

> This is not some sequence of GW-BASIC labels referred to in the style guide.

I recommend to read the current section “7) Centralized exiting of functions”
once more.

>> Can programming preferences evolve into the direction of “say what the
>> goto does”?
> I could agree that macsonic.c has no function resembling "probe1",
> and that portion of the patch could be improved.

I find this feedback interesting.

> Was that the opinion you were trying to express by way of rhetorical
> questions? I can't tell.

Some known factors triggered my suggestion to consider the use of
the label “free_dma”.

> Is it possible for a reviewer to effectively criticise C by use of
> English, when his C ability surpasses his English ability?

We come along possibly usual communication challenges.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists