linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the arm-current 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <10a54594d17b6d2fa0e85ced00b4a7d5@agner.ch>
Date:   Thu, 12 Jul 2018 08:32:47 +0200
From:   Stefan Agner <stefan@...er.ch>
To:     Russell King <rmk@...linux.org.uk>
Cc:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Steven Rostedt (VMware)" <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the arm-current
 tree

On 11.07.2018 23:56, Russell King wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 07:38:03AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> Hi Russell,
>>
>> Commit
>>
>>   6ef09e48c2bc ("ARM: 8780/1: ftrace: Only set kernel memory back to read-only after boot")
>>
>> is missing a Signed-off-by from its author.
> 
> Thanks for spotting, but it's worse than that.  It does have a sign-off
> from its author, but the authorship wasn't preserved by Stefan Agner
> (no From: line in the email body, as there was in Steven's original
> post to the mailing list.)  I'll fix that in the next few days.

Hm, not sure how that exactly happened. I uploaded a patch file
generated by git format-patch using the web interface, there was still a
header:

>From a55f4af25b9299f35481bc89982590941aaae612 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: "Steven Rostedt (VMware)" <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2018 12:47:10 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] ARM: ftrace: Only set kernel memory back to read-only
after
 boot

I probably should have added the line to the message field?

Sorry about that!

--
Stefan