linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 0/4] checkpatch: warn for use of %px

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: <20180302154604.c6c8cc14d06124f36de136d9@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Fri, 2 Mar 2018 15:46:04 -0800
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     "Tobin C. Harding" <me@...in.cc>
Cc:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/4] checkpatch: warn for use of %px

On Tue, 27 Feb 2018 14:04:04 +1100 "Tobin C. Harding" <me@...in.cc> wrote:

> Hi Andrew,
> 
> This is a resurrection of a patch set from last December.  There was
> some confusion (on my behalf) as to how patches to checkpatch got into
> the mainline.  Are you willing (and able) to take patches to
> checkpatch.pl?
> 
> Patch 1 through 3 are cleanup/refactoring patches.
> 
> Patch 3 makes checkpatch emit a warning for usage of specifier %px.
> 
> You may remember that the initial idea for this was from yourself, v1
> requested permission to use 'Suggested-by' tag.  I didn't get comment on
> that so v2 removed the tag.  (I'm not totally across when one should add
> the 'Suggested-by' tag.)
> 
> v3 was an Epic fail, not testing final patch series before submission.
> 
> Joe, I removed your 'Acked-by' tag because the patch you originally
> acked is different after rebasing.  I kept the Co-Developed-by tag
> because the code you wrote is still there I just had to massage it a bit
> since the check for deprecated %p[Ff] has been added since we did v2.

I prefer not to include tags which aren't listed in
Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst, but I now see that some
bright spark added Co-Developed-by: to
Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst, so the two files are a)
duplicative and b) out of sync.

Co-Developed-by is a little more specific than signed-off-by, but not
usefully so, I suggest...