linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH] ext4: Variable to signed to check return code

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:   Sat, 18 May 2019 07:38:34 +0100
From:   Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
To:     Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
        Philippe Mazenauer <philippe.mazenauer@...look.de>,
        Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>,
        "linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: Variable to signed to check return code

On Fri, 17 May 2019, Theodore Ts'o wrote:

> On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 11:25:06AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Fri, 17 May 2019, Philippe Mazenauer wrote:
> > 
> > > Variables 'n' and 'err' are both used for less-than-zero error checking,
> > > however both are declared as unsigned. Ensure ext4_map_blocks() and
> > > add_system_zone() are able to have their return values propagated
> > > correctly by redefining them both as signed integers.
> 
> This is already fixed in the ext4.git tree; it will be pushed to Linus
> shortly.  (Thanks to Colin Ian King from Canonical for sending the
> patch.)
> 
> > Acked-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
> 
> Lee, techncially this should have been Reviewed-by.  Acked-by is used
> by the maintainer when a patch is going in via some other tree other
> than the Maintainer's (it means the Maintainer has acked the patch).
> If you are reviewing a patch, the tag you should be adding is
> Reviewed-by.

Actually, that's not technically correct.

  "- Acked-by: indicates an agreement by another developer (often a
     maintainer of the relevant code) that the patch is appropriate for
     inclusion into the kernel."

And I, as a developer (and not a Maintainer in this case) do indicate
that this patch is appropriate for inclusion into the kernel.

Reviewed-by has stronger connotations and implies I have in-depth
knowledge of the subsystem/driver AND agree to the Reviewer's
Statement.  I use Acked-by in this case as a weaker agreement after a
shallow review of the patch based on its merits alone.

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Linaro Services Technical Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog