linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC] checkpatch: add new warnings to author signoff checks.

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: <c51588b4e8a2096c1453070b983da5ce8617a622.camel@perches.com>
Date:   Mon, 05 Oct 2020 01:05:49 -0700
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     Dwaipayan Ray <dwaipayanray1@...il.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel-mentees@...ts.linuxfoundation.org,
        Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] checkpatch: add new warnings to author signoff
 checks.

On Mon, 2020-10-05 at 13:10 +0530, Dwaipayan Ray wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 5, 2020 at 12:48 PM Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2020-10-05 at 12:18 +0530, Dwaipayan Ray wrote:
> > > The author signed-off-by checks are currently very vague.
> > > Cases like same name or same address are not handled separately.
[]
> > And for mismatches, it's really not known that
> > it should be one way or the or the other is it?
> > 
> 
> I think that's true. But since the mail in the
> From: part is the one which with others are being
> compared, I think maybe it should have the higher
> priority, and be treated as the expected one.

I rather expect it to be the other way around.

The Signed-off-by: line should be authoritative
as that is what is put in the commit log.