linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86, MCE: Do not taint when handling correctable errors

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:	Thu, 21 Apr 2011 12:20:00 +0200
From:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...64.org>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	"Chumbalkar, Nagananda" <Nagananda.Chumbalkar@...com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>,
	Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>, Russ Anderson <rja@....com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	EDAC devel <linux-edac@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86, MCE: Do not taint when handling correctable
 errors

On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 06:06:39AM -0400, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 05:58:48AM -0400, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > Ok, indeed. Also, in the future, if you take patches from others please also 
> > credit them in the changelog. Something like this would have been good in the 
> > current case:
> > 
> >   Also, this patch includes a change from Nagananda Chumbalkar as well, which 
> >   drops tainting in the therma throttling code for a similar reason: crossing a
> >   thermal threshold does not mean corruption.
> > 
> > Nagananda's Acked-by is there so there's at least partial credit - but we 
> > generally try to aim for at least 100% credit where credit is due :-)
> 
> Absolutely, and in the light of recent events :) I'm still not sure how
> to do that though in a straight-forward manner so that it is visible at
> a first glance. Sure, adding freeform text to the commit message is one
> way. Using a SOB chain might work too - even the Acked-by tag - but all
> those have another main purpose and are being repurposed for annotating
> the fact that a patch is the result of more than one author's thought
> process.
> 
> IOW, in case I'm not missing anything, we don't really have a way to
> denote a multiple authorship, correct? And we should...

Ok, after RTFMing <Documentation/SubmittingPatches> here's how:

From: Original Author <author@...mple.com>

	^ this is the original author who sent the initial patch

Signed-off-by: Original Author <author@...mple.com>
Signed-off-by: Additional Author <author2@...mple.com>
Signed-off-by: Third Author <author3@...mple.com>

and the SOBs following after the 1st one are denoting additional authors.

However, additional SOBs mean also subsystem maintainers on the delivery
path of the patch. I guess this is ok though.

Thanks.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.

Advanced Micro Devices GmbH
Einsteinring 24, 85609 Dornach
General Managers: Alberto Bozzo, Andrew Bowd
Registration: Dornach, Gemeinde Aschheim, Landkreis Muenchen
Registergericht Muenchen, HRB Nr. 43632
--
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/