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  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, 29 Sep 2021 13:25:07 -0700
From:   Brendan Higgins <>
To:     Kees Cook <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/6] gcc-plugins/structleak: add makefile var for
 disabling structleak

On Fri, Sep 17, 2021 at 8:48 AM Kees Cook <> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 11:10:59PM -0700, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> > KUnit and structleak don't play nice, so add a makefile variable for
> > enabling structleak when it complains.
> >
> > Co-developed-by: Kees Cook <>
> For a C-d-b, also include a S-o-b:
> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <>
> But otherwise, yes, this is good. :)

Yeah, I know that's necessary for the patch to be accepted, but in
this case, I don't think your original version of this (it wasn't
actually a patch) had a S-o-b on it, so I didn't want to say that you
had signed off on something that you didn't.

I have run into this situation before and handled it this way -
letting the co-developer sign off on the list. Is this something I
should avoid in the future?

In any case, I will resubmit this now that I have your S-o-b.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists