On 05/06/2023 11:29 am, Bertrand Marquis wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
>> On 5 Jun 2023, at 12:05, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>
>> Insecure the word being looked for here. Especially given the nature of the
>> sole caller, and the (correct) comment next to it.
> Good finding.
>
>> I've left the taint constant
On 05.06.2023 12:14, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 05/06/2023 11:10 am, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 05.06.2023 12:05, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>> Insecure the word being looked for here. Especially given the nature of the
>> Nit: Missing "is"?
>
> Oops yes.
>
>>
>>> sole caller, and the (correct) comment
Hi Andrew,
> On 5 Jun 2023, at 12:05, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>
> Insecure the word being looked for here. Especially given the nature of the
> sole caller, and the (correct) comment next to it.
Good finding.
>
> I've left the taint constant as 'U' as it's a rather more user-visible.
I would v
On 05/06/2023 11:10 am, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 05.06.2023 12:05, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> Insecure the word being looked for here. Especially given the nature of the
> Nit: Missing "is"?
Oops yes.
>
>> sole caller, and the (correct) comment next to it.
>>
>> I've left the taint constant as 'U' a
On 05.06.2023 12:05, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> Insecure the word being looked for here. Especially given the nature of the
Nit: Missing "is"?
> sole caller, and the (correct) comment next to it.
>
> I've left the taint constant as 'U' as it's a rather more user-visible.
>
> Fixes: 82c0d3d491cc ("
Insecure the word being looked for here. Especially given the nature of the
sole caller, and the (correct) comment next to it.
I've left the taint constant as 'U' as it's a rather more user-visible.
Fixes: 82c0d3d491cc ("xen: Add an unsecure Taint type")
Signed-off-by: Andrew Cooper
---
CC: Jan
