linux-kernel - Signed-off-by: (was Re: [PATCH] exfat: fix boolreturn.cocci warnings

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]

Date:   Sat, 23 Nov 2019 21:09:18 -0500
From:   "Valdis Klētnieks" <valdis.kletnieks@...edu>
To:     kbuild test robot <lkp@...el.com>
Cc:     Namjae Jeon <namjae.jeon@...sung.com>, kbuild-all@...ts.01.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, hch@....de, linkinjeon@...il.com,
        Markus.Elfring@....de, sj1557.seo@...sung.com, dwagner@...e.de,
        nborisov@...e.com
Subject: Signed-off-by: (was Re: [PATCH] exfat: fix boolreturn.cocci warnings

On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 23:52:21 +0800, kbuild test robot said:
> From: kbuild test robot <lkp@...el.com>
>
> fs/exfat/file.c:50:10-11: WARNING: return of 0/1 in function 'exfat_allow_set_time' with return type bool

The warning and fix themselves look OK..

> Signed-off-by: kbuild test robot <lkp@...el.com>

But somehow, this strikes me as fishy.

Or more correctly, it looks reasonable to me, but seems to clash with the
Developer's Certificate of Origin as described in submitting-patches.rst, which
makes the assumption that the patch submitter is a carbon-based life form. In
particular, I doubt the kbuild test robot can understand the thing, and I have
*no* idea who/what ends up owning the GPLv2 copyright on software automatically
created by other software.

Or are we OK on this?

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped