linux-kernel - Re: [kernel-hardening] [RFC V2 0/6] add more kernel pointer filter options

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: <20171004093147.6270557a@gandalf.local.home>
Date:   Wed, 4 Oct 2017 09:31:47 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     "Tobin C. Harding" <me@...in.cc>, Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
        Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
        Ian Campbell <ijc@...lion.org.uk>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
        kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        William Roberts <william.c.roberts@...el.com>,
        Chris Fries <cfries@...gle.com>,
        Dave Weinstein <olorin@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [kernel-hardening] [RFC V2 0/6] add more kernel pointer filter
 options


As Greg stated that he helped author the patch, you can ignore this
email. Sorry for the noise.

-- Steve

On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 09:28:15 -0400
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:

> On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 14:42:33 +0200
> Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> 
> > > Is correct protocol for me to add your Signed-off-by tag to each patch from this RFC? Or is the
> > > protocol for you to add the tag yourself when the real version is posted?     
> > 
> > You can add my signed-off-by to your new patches,  
> 
> I was always told that one should never add someone else's
> signed-off-by, because that's not what it means. 
> 
> I was told that this would be an Acked-by or Reviewed-by.
> 
> From Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst:
> 
> ====
> 12) When to use Acked-by: and Cc:
> ---------------------------------
> 
> The Signed-off-by: tag indicates that the signer was involved in the
> development of the patch, or that he/she was in the patch's delivery path.
> 
> If a person was not directly involved in the preparation or handling of a
> patch but wishes to signify and record their approval of it then they can
> ask to have an Acked-by: line added to the patch's changelog.
> 
> Acked-by: is often used by the maintainer of the affected code when that
> maintainer neither contributed to nor forwarded the patch.
> 
> Acked-by: is not as formal as Signed-off-by:.  It is a record that the acker
> has at least reviewed the patch and has indicated acceptance.  Hence patch
> mergers will sometimes manually convert an acker's "yep, looks good to me"
> into an Acked-by: (but note that it is usually better to ask for an
> explicit ack).
> ====
> 
> -- Steve