From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mimi Zohar Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 19:28:13 +0000 Subject: Re: char/tpm: Improve a size determination in nine functions Message-Id: <1508268493.4513.39.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> List-Id: References: <1d3516a2-a8e6-9e95-d438-f115fac84c7f@users.sourceforge.net> <83a166af-aecc-649d-dfe3-a72245345209@users.sourceforge.net> <1508238182.16112.475.camel@linux.intel.com> <1508244757.4234.60.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1508253453.4234.81.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <9689f036-ba9f-d23b-cf89-c289bc308771@users.sourceforge.net> In-Reply-To: <9689f036-ba9f-d23b-cf89-c289bc308771@users.sourceforge.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit To: SF Markus Elfring , linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org Cc: Julia Lawall , Alexander Steffen , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, Andy Shevchenko , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Corentin Labbe , Jarkko Sakkinen , Jason Gunthorpe , Jerry Snitselaar , Kenneth Goldman , Michael Ellerman , Nayna Jain , Paul Mackerras , Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?H=FCwe?= , Stefan Berger On Tue, 2017-10-17 at 20:41 +0200, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > Do you find my wording “This issue was detected by using the > Coccinelle software.” insufficient? The question is not whether it is insufficient, but whether it is appropriate.  Detecting Coccinelle issues is one step.  The next step is deciding what to do with them.  Up to now, these messages have been sent out as informational, not as patches. Before sending patches to change existing code, address the "problem" so that it doesn't continue to happen.  Only afterwards is it appropriate to discuss what to do with existing code. Mimi From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:49170 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965905AbdJQT2a (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Oct 2017 15:28:30 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098396.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.21/8.16.0.21) with SMTP id v9HJQ4Wp060345 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2017 15:28:30 -0400 Received: from e06smtp14.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp14.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.110]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2dnk9nxs0d-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2017 15:28:30 -0400 Received: from localhost by e06smtp14.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Tue, 17 Oct 2017 20:28:28 +0100 Subject: Re: char/tpm: Improve a size determination in nine functions From: Mimi Zohar To: SF Markus Elfring , linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org Cc: Julia Lawall , Alexander Steffen , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, Andy Shevchenko , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Corentin Labbe , Jarkko Sakkinen , Jason Gunthorpe , Jerry Snitselaar , Kenneth Goldman , Michael Ellerman , Nayna Jain , Paul Mackerras , Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?H=FCwe?= , Stefan Berger Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 15:28:13 -0400 In-Reply-To: <9689f036-ba9f-d23b-cf89-c289bc308771@users.sourceforge.net> References: <1d3516a2-a8e6-9e95-d438-f115fac84c7f@users.sourceforge.net> <83a166af-aecc-649d-dfe3-a72245345209@users.sourceforge.net> <1508238182.16112.475.camel@linux.intel.com> <1508244757.4234.60.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1508253453.4234.81.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <9689f036-ba9f-d23b-cf89-c289bc308771@users.sourceforge.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <1508268493.4513.39.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Sender: linux-integrity-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, 2017-10-17 at 20:41 +0200, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > Do you find my wording "This issue was detected by using the > Coccinelle software." insufficient? The question is not whether it is insufficient, but whether it is appropriate. Detecting Coccinelle issues is one step. The next step is deciding what to do with them. Up to now, these messages have been sent out as informational, not as patches. Before sending patches to change existing code, address the "problem" so that it doesn't continue to happen. Only afterwards is it appropriate to discuss what to do with existing code. Mimi From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.158.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3yGlbg6pWvzDqlv for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2017 06:28:31 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from pps.filterd (m0098419.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.21/8.16.0.21) with SMTP id v9HJRd1W060449 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2017 15:28:28 -0400 Received: from e06smtp13.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp13.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.109]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2dnkbrny8r-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2017 15:28:28 -0400 Received: from localhost by e06smtp13.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Tue, 17 Oct 2017 20:28:26 +0100 Received: from d23av01.au.ibm.com (d23av01.au.ibm.com [9.190.234.96]) by b06cxnps4076.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id v9HJSN2F25952442 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2017 19:28:24 GMT Received: from d23av01.au.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by d23av01.au.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id v9HJSNIY010623 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2017 06:28:24 +1100 Subject: Re: char/tpm: Improve a size determination in nine functions From: Mimi Zohar To: SF Markus Elfring , linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org Cc: Julia Lawall , Alexander Steffen , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, Andy Shevchenko , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Corentin Labbe , Jarkko Sakkinen , Jason Gunthorpe , Jerry Snitselaar , Kenneth Goldman , Michael Ellerman , Nayna Jain , Paul Mackerras , Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?H=FCwe?= , Stefan Berger Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 15:28:13 -0400 In-Reply-To: <9689f036-ba9f-d23b-cf89-c289bc308771@users.sourceforge.net> References: <1d3516a2-a8e6-9e95-d438-f115fac84c7f@users.sourceforge.net> <83a166af-aecc-649d-dfe3-a72245345209@users.sourceforge.net> <1508238182.16112.475.camel@linux.intel.com> <1508244757.4234.60.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1508253453.4234.81.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <9689f036-ba9f-d23b-cf89-c289bc308771@users.sourceforge.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <1508268493.4513.39.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Tue, 2017-10-17 at 20:41 +0200, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > Do you find my wording “This issue was detected by using the > Coccinelle software.” insufficient? The question is not whether it is insufficient, but whether it is appropriate.  Detecting Coccinelle issues is one step.  The next step is deciding what to do with them.  Up to now, these messages have been sent out as informational, not as patches. Before sending patches to change existing code, address the "problem" so that it doesn't continue to happen.  Only afterwards is it appropriate to discuss what to do with existing code. Mimi