linux-hardening - Re: [PATCH v1 1/6] gcc-plugins/structleak: add makefile var for disabling structleak

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]

Message-ID: <CAFd5g47YMnMzR+dtSLy9NvMb4TkeDkbSNt3qs-kvfLo_0y9-eg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 29 Sep 2021 13:25:07 -0700
From:   Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:     shuah@...nel.org, davidgow@...gle.com, arnd@...db.de,
        rafael@...nel.org, jic23@...nel.org, lars@...afoo.de,
        ulf.hansson@...aro.org, andreas.noever@...il.com,
        michael.jamet@...el.com, mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com,
        yehezkelshb@...il.com, masahiroy@...nel.org,
        michal.lkml@...kovi.net, ndesaulniers@...gle.com,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, kunit-dev@...glegroups.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org, linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org
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 <keescook@...omium.org> 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 <keescook@...omium.org>
>
> For a C-d-b, also include a S-o-b:
>
> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
>
> 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.

Thanks!