[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190805172733.GE18785@zn.tnic>
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2019 19:27:33 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@...omium.org>,
kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, kristen@...ux.intel.com,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
x86@...nel.org, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 01/11] x86/crypto: Adapt assembly for PIE support
On Mon, Aug 05, 2019 at 09:54:44AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> I think there was some long-ago feedback from someone (Ingo?) about
> giving context for the patch so looking at one individually would let
> someone know that it was part of a larger series.
Strange. But then we'd have to "mark" all patches which belong to a
larger series this way, no? And we don't do that...
> Do you think it should just be dropped in each patch?
I think reading it once is enough. If the change alone in some commit
message is not clear why it is being done - to support PIE - then sure,
by all means. But slapping it everywhere...
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
