linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] x86/bpf: Fix 64-bit JIT frame pointer usage

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: <20190615042747.awyy4djqe6vfmles@treble>
Date:   Fri, 14 Jun 2019 23:27:47 -0500
From:   Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Cc:     X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>,
        Kairui Song <kasong@...hat.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] x86/bpf: Fix 64-bit JIT frame pointer usage

On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 05:02:36PM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 4:54 PM Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com> wrote:
> > The previous patch you posted has my patch description, push/pop and
> > comment changes, with no credit:
> >
> > https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190614210555.q4ictql3tzzjio4r@ast-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com
> 
> I'm sorry for reusing one sentence from your commit log and
> not realizing you want credit for that.
> Will not happen again.

Um.  What are you talking about?  The entire patch was clearly derived
from mine.  Not just "one sentence from your commit log".  The title,
the pushes/pops in the prologue/epilogue, the removal of the
"ebpf_from_cbpf" argument, the code spacing, and some of the non trivial
comment changes were the same.

> I also suggest you never touch anything bpf related.
> Just to avoid this credit claims and threads like this one.

Wth.  I made a simple request for credit.  Anybody can see the patch was
derived from mine.  It's not like I really care.  It's just basic human
decency.

-- 
Josh