netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 4/4] sfc: expose CTPIO stats on NICs that support them

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>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 20 Dec 2017 12:30:12 -0500 (EST)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     ecree@...arflare.com
Cc:     jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com, linux-net-drivers@...arflare.com,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 4/4] sfc: expose CTPIO stats on NICs that
 support them

From: Edward Cree <ecree@...arflare.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 11:29:32 +0000

> On 19/12/17 20:42, David Miller wrote:
>> From: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
>> Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 12:20:36 -0800
>>
>>> On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 17:06:36 +0000, Edward Cree wrote:
>>>> From: Bert Kenward <bkenward@...arflare.com>
>>>>
>>>> While the Linux driver doesn't use CTPIO ('cut-through programmed I/O'),
>>>>  other drivers on the same port might, so if we're responsible for
>>>>  reporting per-port stats we need to include the CTPIO stats.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Edward Cree <ecree@...arflare.com>
>>> FWIW this is missing a sign-off from Bert.
>> Edward, please fix this and resubmit.
> FWIW, our practice hitherto at Solarflare for patches written internally
>  has been to apply the SOB at the point of upstream submission; the
>  submitter is the person certifying (on behalf of the company) that the
>  patch is offered under a suitable license.
> The motion of the patch within the company is not tracked with SOBs since —
>  as works-for-hire — the copyrights are all owned by the company rather
>  than the patch author.
> If this is a problem we can start gathering SOBs from the authors for the
>  submission; but as I understand the DCoO that should not be necessary, and
>  it hasn't been considered a problem until recently.
> Please advise on how we should handle this in future.

Although technically what you are doing is fine, it is more complete to have
every author provide a signoff and this is what the vast majority of other
situations like your's are doing.

I won't force it upon you, but it will make me a lot happier if you
have all of the authors signoff.