Re: [PATCH 0/7] gpg-interface cleanups

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes:

> This started off with Michael's patch to sign_buffer, which is at the
> tip, and then me trying to address the possible deadlocks there and in
> verify_signed_buffer. While I was in the area, I took the opportunity to
> do a few cleanups.
>
> It's unclear to me whether the deadlocks are possible in practice; see
> patch 5 for discussion.

I do recall thinking about the verification side and coming up with
the same conclusion as yours when we queued that code (i.e. they
need to read the whole thing before checking).

> My guess is probably not, but the amount of code
> to support doing it right is not all that much. But if we don't like it,
> we can drop 4-6.

Let's keep all of them; they all looked reasonable.

> Patch 7 is still authored by Michael, but has been massaged greatly by
> me. I'll comment more directly on the changes there.
>
>   [1/7]: gpg-interface: use child_process.args
>   [2/7]: verify_signed_buffer: drop pbuf variable
>   [3/7]: verify_signed_buffer: use tempfile object
>   [4/7]: run-command: add pipe_command helper
>   [5/7]: verify_signed_buffer: use pipe_command
>   [6/7]: sign_buffer: use pipe_command
>   [7/7]: gpg-interface: check gpg signature creation status

Thanks.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]