linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] checkpatch: add fix option for MISSING_SIGN

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: <13f3fc34-0ca4-66d4-92ca-db80b66f5fb4@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 18 Nov 2020 02:02:14 +0530
From:   Aditya <yashsri421@...il.com>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
        Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel-mentees@...ts.linuxfoundation.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] checkpatch: add fix option for MISSING_SIGN_OFF

On 11/11/20 9:20 pm, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Wed, 2020-11-11 at 16:39 +0530, Aditya wrote:
>> On 11/11/20 4:00 pm, Lukas Bulwahn wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 10:01 AM Aditya Srivastava <yashsri421@...il.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Currently checkpatch warns us if there is no 'Signed-off-by' line
>>>> for the patch.
>>>>
>>>> E.g., running checkpatch on commit 9ac060a708e0 ("leaking_addresses:
>>>> Completely remove --version flag") reports this error:
>>>>
>>>> ERROR: Missing Signed-off-by: line(s)
>>>>
>>>> Provide a fix by adding a Signed-off-by line corresponding to the author
>>>> of the patch before the patch separator line. Also avoid this error for
>>>> the commits where some typo is present in the sign off.
> []
>>> I think it should still warn about a Missing Signed-off-by: even when
>>> we know there is a $non_standard_signature. So, checkpatch simply
>>> emits two warnings; that is okay in that case.
>>>
>>> It is just that our evaluation shows that the provided fix option
>>> should not be suggested when there is a $non_standard_signature
>>> because we actually would predict that there is typo in the intended
>>> Signed-off-by tag and the fix that checkpatch would suggest would not
>>> be adequate.
>>>
>>> Joe, what is your opinion?
>>>
>>> Aditya, it should not be too difficult to implement the rule that way, right?
>>>
>>
>> No, I'd probably just have to add the check with $fix, instead of with
>> $signoff
> 
> I think it does not matter much which is chosen.
> 
> The bad signed-off-by: line would still need to be corrected one
> way or another and the added signed-off-line is also possibly
> incorrect so it could need to be modified or deleted.
> 
> 

I think I might have misunderstood here that I do not need to make
changes. Just confirming, Do I need to modify the patch?
Pardon me for my late attention to it.

Thanks
Aditya