linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4] x86, olpc: add debugfs interface for EC commands

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <22573.1332865126@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Date:	Tue, 27 Mar 2012 12:18:46 -0400
From:	Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
To:	Matthew Garrett <mjg@...hat.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Daniel Drake <dsd@...top.org>,
	mingo@...hat.com, tglx@...utronix.de, x86@...nel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dilinger@...ued.net, pgf@...top.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] x86, olpc: add debugfs interface for EC commands

On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 17:07:14 +0100, Matthew Garrett said:

> If a previous author has given a Signed-off-by then they've clearly
> indicated that their code is under an appropriate license and may be
> submitted to the kernel. If someone else then takes that code, modifies
> it and submits it then there's no obvious reason why we still need the
> original Signed-off-by. Giving credit to the original author is
> obviously appropriate, but I don't see why we need any more than that.

Conversely, if a maintainer does fixups on a patch while commiting
it, we *don't* discard the original Signed-off-by.   I'd say if somebody's
submitting somebody else's patch, the chain should be:

signed-off-by: original author
signed-off-by: the person who did the updates
signed-off-by: <chain of maintainers heading upstream>

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped