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: <20240417203430.GB3935777@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2024 21:34:30 +0100
From: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
To: Florian Fainelli <florian.fainelli@...adcom.com>
Cc: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>,
	Justin Chen <justin.chen@...adcom.com>,
	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 Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 09:52:47AM -0700, 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.

Thanks Florian,

On reflection, my previous email was inappropriate.
I do have reservations about the review provided by Markus,
but should not reacted as I did. I apologise to every for that.