netdev - Re: [PATCH v7 net-next 00/18] Introducing P4TC

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]

Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2023 11:56:15 -0400
From: Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, anjali.singhai@...el.com, namrata.limaye@...el.com, 
	deb.chatterjee@...el.com, john.andy.fingerhut@...el.com, dan.daly@...el.com, 
	Vipin.Jain@....com, tom@...anda.io, mleitner@...hat.com, 
	Mahesh.Shirshyad@....com, tomasz.osinski@...el.com, jiri@...nulli.us, 
	xiyou.wangcong@...il.com, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, 
	pabeni@...hat.com, vladbu@...dia.com, horms@...nel.org, khalidm@...dia.com, 
	toke@...hat.com, mattyk@...dia.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 net-next 00/18] Introducing P4TC

On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 11:40 AM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 11:27:36 -0400 Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
> > > patch-by-patch W=1 C=1 should be good enough to catch the problems.
> >
> > Thanks - this helps. We didnt pay good attention to
> > https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst
> > Only thing that is missing now is the mention of C=1 in the doc. Patch
> > to the doc acceptable?
> > Also a note about false positives in sparse output (there were a few
> > in the warnings from the bot) would be apropos.
>
> Um. Maybe.. Sparse generates more false positives than good warnings
> lately :( We'd have to add some extra info like "Note that sparse
> is known to generate false-positive warnings, if you think that the
> warning generated with C=1 is bogus, ignore it and note that fact
> in the commit message".
>

> I don't like documenting things which aren't clear-cut :(

Upto you - couldnt sum up from above if you want a patch or not. I
think it makes sense to document C=1 somewhere since it helps your
overhead.
But the comment Similar in spirit to the checkpatch comment if - "But
do not be mindlessly robotic in doing so..."

> I'm pretty sure you have pure W=1 warnings here, too.

True - I am not sure how we missed one with function not used.

cheers,
jamal