linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5] 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: <CABJPP5CwuV8mKZzZqg3AjHubTqE3QzZC1zQyf+U+-Q=kRxKh9A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 8 Oct 2020 00:23:45 +0530
From:   Dwaipayan Ray <dwaipayanray1@...il.com>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel-mentees@...ts.linuxfoundation.org,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] checkpatch: add new warnings to author signoff checks.

On Thu, Oct 8, 2020 at 12:14 AM Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2020-10-08 at 00:08 +0530, Dwaipayan Ray wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 11:48 PM Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2020-10-07 at 12:08 +0530, Dwaipayan Ray wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 12:03 PM Dwaipayan Ray <dwaipayanray1@...il.com> wrote:
> > > > > The author signed-off-by checks are currently very vague.
> > > > > Cases like same name or same address are not handled separately.
> > >
> > > Likely now, the type should be changed from NO_AUTHOR_SIGN_OFF
> > > to a single something else for all the other types of messages.
> > >
> > >
> > Since BAD_SIGNOFF is being used for a different context, then
> > probably BAD_AUTHOR_SIGNOFF.
> >
> > Should this work or anything else you have in mind?
>
> That may be a bit too strong a wording as these aren't
> significant/bad defects.
>
> Maybe something like FROM_SIGNOFF_MISMATCH.
>
> It's not anything that would reject the patch.
>
> It's a pity type uses both SIGNOFF and SIGN_OFF.
>
Oh right sorry, It was a "visual mistake" on my part, it's SIGN_OFF
indeed and not SIGNOFF.

And I agree with the strong wording. So I will probably make it
FROM_SIGN_OFF_MISMATCH. And after that send in a
v6. (If I run out of single digit version numbers after this, it will
be embarrassing :(  ).

Thanks,
Dwaipayan.