linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drivers-x86 tree

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: <20170803102810.37f7c6b0@canb.auug.org.au>
Date:   Thu, 3 Aug 2017 10:28:10 +1000
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>
Cc:     Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
        Linus <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drivers-x86
 tree

Hi Darren,

On Wed, 2 Aug 2017 16:57:40 -0700 Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> Is this a new check Stephen?

Yes :-)

> Is there any statement regarding maintainer teams that we must abide by
> this?  e.g. any time a rebase in a testing branch is made, the
> maintainer must also ensure a SOB is on each patch?

I would say that if you rebase someone's commit(s), then you are on the
"patch's delivery path" and so should add a Signed-off-by tag. (cc'ing
Linus to see if he has an opinion.  Linus, the case here is a patch
originally committed by one maintainer and then rebased by the other.)

> I just want to get a clear picture of what the failure was so we can
> update our tooling so this doesn't repeat itself.

"git rebase" does have a "--signoff" option.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell