netdev - Re: [EXTERNAL] 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]

Message-ID: <20240625180449.64e5feb1@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 18:04:49 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Suman Ghosh <sumang@...vell.com>
Cc: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>, "netdev@...r.kernel.org"
 <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "David S.
 Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, 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: [EXTERNAL] Re: [net PATCH v2 0/7] octeontx2-af: Fix klockwork
 issues in AF driver

On Tue, 25 Jun 2024 18:34:55 +0000 Suman Ghosh wrote:
> * Why did you not directly respond to the recurring patch review concern
> 
>   about better summary phrases (or message subjects)?
> 
>   https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__git.kernel.org_pub_scm_linux_kernel_git_torvalds_linux.git_tree_Documentation_process_submitting-2Dpatches.rst-3Fh-3Dv6.10-2Drc5-23n646&d=DwIFaQ&c=nKjWec2b6R0mOyPaz7xtfQ&r=7si3Xn9Ly-Se1a655kvEPIYU0nQ9HPeN280sEUv5ROU&m=tyo7VgAvJ4PW3onftljYvIjrznQ9gYDoeBImOruW9-jUya4QuUMNK2qYOPd2dJK3&s=wYjJjR6jScQdlXWCRWzeG3SidVq0MRYYjMlDPBGMJI8&e=
> 
> [Suman] I thought the “summery phrase” is per patch. The cover letter is mentioning the reason for the change and each patch set is adding the summery for the change. Since it is not some actual ‘fix’ I am not sure what more to add other than mentioning klockwork fixes. I am not sure what more can be added for a variable initialization to zero or adding a NULL check. Can you suggest some?
> 
> 
> 
> * 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. Having junk value in the variable if not initialized or accessing a NULL pointer, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> * 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. Hence went with per file approach. Do you see any problem with the approach?

Please configure your MUA to quote correctly, with > characters.