linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4] 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <cd8fb6742e4776a98412278815fc86b568820b6e.camel@perches.com>
Date:   Tue, 06 Oct 2020 13:09:42 -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 <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] checkpatch: add new warnings to author signoff
 checks.

On Wed, 2020-10-07 at 00:31 +0530, Dwaipayan Ray wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 12:25 AM Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2020-10-07 at 00:21 +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.
> > > 
> > > For example, running checkpatch on commit be6577af0cef
> > > ("parisc: Add atomic64_set_release() define to avoid CPU soft lockups"),
> > > gives:
> > 
> > Aren't you still missing emitting an message for cases like
> > 
> > From: "J. Random Developer" <jrd@...corp.com>
> > [...]
> > Signed-off-by: "J. Random Developer" (BigCorp) <jrd@...corp.com>
> > 
> > Where a comment does not match?
> > 
> > 
> 
> Yes, messages for comments were not emitted previously too
> cause the same_email_address() function just matches name
> and email (discarding name comments and email comments).
> 
> So should I add it to this patch, or should I work on it in a different
> patch perhaps because it involves change on another subroutine?

I suggest adding it to this patch.