netdev - Re: [PATCH net] net: bcmasp: fix memory leak when bringing down if

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: <1f3131a4-fa84-4d25-8c1a-ab0023aace23@broadcom.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2024 11:48:33 -0700
From: Justin Chen <justin.chen@...adcom.com>
To: Florian Fainelli <florian.fainelli@...adcom.com>,
 Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
Cc: bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
 kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
 "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
 Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net: bcmasp: fix memory leak when bringing down if



On 4/17/24 9:52 AM, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> On 4/17/24 09:19, Simon Horman wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 09:46:44PM +0200, Markus Elfring wrote:
>>>>>> When bringing down the TX rings we flush the rings but forget to
>>>>>> reclaimed the flushed packets. This lead to a memory leak since we
>>>>>> do not free the dma mapped buffers. …
>>>>>
>>>>> I find this change description improvable.
>>>>>
>>>>> * How do you think about to avoid typos?
>>>>>
>>>>> * Would another imperative wording be more desirable?
>>>>
>>>> The change description makes sense to me. Can you be a bit more 
>>>> specific as to what isn't clear here?
>>>
>>> Spelling suggestions:
>>> + … forget to reclaim …
>>> + … This leads to …
>>
>> Markus, let's cut to the chase.
>>
>> What portion of your responses of this thread were produced
>> by an LLM or similar technology?
>>
>> The suggestions in your second email are correct.
>> But, ironically, your first response appears to be grammatically 
>> incorrect.
>>
>> Specifically:
>>
>> * What does "improvable" mean in this context?
> 
> I read it as "improbable", but this patch came out of an actual bug 
> report we had internally and code inspection revealed the leaks being 
> plugged by this patch.
> 
>> * "How do you think about to avoid typos?"
>>    is, in my opinion, grammatically incorrect.
>>    And, FWIW, I see no typos.
> 
> There was one, "This lead to a memory leak" -> "This leads to a memory 
> leak"
> 
>> * "Would another imperative wording be more desirable?"
>>    is, in my opinion, also grammatically incorrect.
>>
>> And yet your comment is ostensibly about grammar.
>> I'm sorry, but this strikes me as absurd.
> 
> Yeah, I share that too, if you are to nitpick on every single word 
> someone wrote in a commit message, your responses better be squeaky 
> clean such that Shakespeare himself would be proud of you.
> 
> There is a track record of what people might consider bike shedding, 
> others might consider useless, and others might find uber pedantic 
> comments from Markus done under his other email address: 
> elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net.
> 
> Me personally, I read his comments and apply my own judgement as to 
> whether they justify spinning a new patch just to address the feedback 
> given. He has not landed on my ignore filter, but of course that can 
> change at a moments notice.

I try my best to address feedback. After a bit of thought, I feel the 
feedback given was not out of good faith. I would like to keep the patch 
as-is unless someone else has feedback. That is if the maintainers are 
ok with that.

Thanks,
Justin


Download attachment "smime.p7s" of type "application/pkcs7-signature" (4206 bytes)