netdev - Re: [net PATCH v2 0/7] octeontx2-af: Fix klockwork issues in AF driver

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 21:50:33 +0200
From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To: Suman Ghosh <sumang@...vell.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "David S. Miller"
 <davem@...emloft.net>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
 Jerin Jacob <jerinj@...vell.com>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
 Geethasowjanya Akula <gakula@...vell.com>,
 Hariprasad Kelam <hkelam@...vell.com>, Linu Cherian <lcherian@...vell.com>,
 Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
 Subbaraya Sundeep Bhatta <sbhatta@...vell.com>,
 Sunil Kovvuri Goutham <sgoutham@...vell.com>
Subject: Re: [net PATCH v2 0/7] octeontx2-af: Fix klockwork issues in AF
 driver

> > * Why did you not directly respond to the recurring patch review concern
> >   about better summary phrases (or message subjects)?
…
> [Suman] I thought the “summery phrase” is per patch.

Summaries are obviously important parts for patch subjects.

> The cover letter is mentioning the reason for the change

I would like to read an improved overview for your change approach.

> and each patch set is adding the summery for the change.

I have got understanding difficulties for such information somehow.

> Since it is not some actual ‘fix’ I am not sure what more to add other

It seems that there is a temporary conflict according to expected explanation quality.

> than mentioning klockwork fixes.

Source code analysis tools can provide more helpful information.
Do I need to remind you for the published software documentation
around “C checkers”?

> I am not sure what more can be added for a variable initialization to zero
> or adding a NULL check.

* Common vulnerability enumeration?

* CERT reference?

> Can you suggest some?

* Please take another look at linked information sources.

* Can you get sufficient inspirations from published patches?

> > * Would you like to explain any more here which development concern categories
> >   were picked up from the mentioned source code analysis tool?
>
> [Suman]  Development concerns are mentioned in individual patch sets.

* Grouping?

* Outlines?

* Taxonomy?

> > * How much do you care for the grouping of logical changes into
> >   consistent patch series?
>
> [Suman] I thought about it but then I was not sure
>         how to add fix tags for a unified patch set.

Why did you not ask before sending another questionable patch series?

> Hence went with per file approach.

It can occasionally be helpful for change preparations.

> Do you see any problem with the approach?

Obviously, yes.

I hope that you can take several patch review issues better into account finally.

Regards,
Markus