linux-kernel - why are some of my patches being credited to other "authors"?

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sat, 9 Dec 2006 05:22:32 -0500 (EST)
From:	"Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@...dspring.com>
To:	Linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: why are some of my patches being credited to other "authors"?

  perhaps i'm just being clueless about the authorship protocol here,
but i'm a bit hacked off by noticing that at least one submitted patch
of mine was apparently re-submitted (albeit slightly modified) a few
days later by another poster and applied under that poster's name.

  on sun, dec 3, i submitted to the list:

http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=116516635728664&w=2

and yet, just by accident this morning, i see the log for that file
ipc/sem.c contains:

======================================================
commit 4668edc334ee90cf50c382c3e423cfc510b5a126
Author: Burman Yan <yan_952@...mail.com>
Date:   Wed Dec 6 20:38:51 2006 -0800

    [PATCH] kernel core: replace kmalloc+memset with kzalloc

    Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
    Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>

diff --git a/ipc/sem.c b/ipc/sem.c
index 21b3289..d3e12ef 100644
--- a/ipc/sem.c
+++ b/ipc/sem.c
@@ -1070,14 +1070,13 @@ static struct sem_undo *find_undo(struct
        ipc_rcu_getref(sma);
        sem_unlock(sma);

-       new = (struct sem_undo *) kmalloc(sizeof(struct sem_undo) + sizeof(short)*nsems, GFP_KERNEL);
+       new = kzalloc(sizeof(struct sem_undo) + sizeof(short)*nsems, GFP_KERNEL);
        if (!new) {
                ipc_lock_by_ptr(&sma->sem_perm);
                ipc_rcu_putref(sma);
                sem_unlock(sma);
                return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
        }
-       memset(new, 0, sizeof(struct sem_undo) + sizeof(short)*nsems);
        new->semadj = (short *) &new[1];
        new->semid = semid;
======================================================

  admittedly, mr. yan's patch is technically cleaner since it removes
the superfluous cast applied to kzalloc().  however, i very
*deliberately* left that cast in, and i explained why a couple days
later here in another context:

http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=116553652920469&w=2

  quite simply, as per the guidelines given for creating and
submitting kernel patches, i'm trying to keep each submission
well-defined, as i was going to follow up the above with another
submission to remove *all* superfluous casts in one fell swoop.  but
it's not just a matter of proper patch attribution.

  i've submitted a number of patches recently and, every time i do a
"git pull", i check the log to see if any of them have been applied so
i can delete them from my personal "submitted but not applied"
directory.  if they've been applied by another author, then naturally
i'll never notice and i'll keep wondering about the delay.

  so what's the protocol here?  are more senior kernel developers
allowed to poach on my patch submissions, tidy them up slightly, then
drop any attribution to me?  enquiring minds *definitely* want this
cleared up.

rday

p.s.  it's possible that this is all just a wild coincidence, of
course.  stranger things have happened.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/