linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5] checkpatch: add fix and improve warning msg for Non-standard signature

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:   Tue, 01 Dec 2020 09:24:44 -0800
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     Aditya Srivastava <yashsri421@...il.com>
Cc:     lukas.bulwahn@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel-mentees@...ts.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] checkpatch: add fix and improve warning msg for
 Non-standard signature

On Tue, 2020-12-01 at 16:59 +0530, Aditya Srivastava wrote:
> Currently, checkpatch.pl warns for BAD_SIGN_OFF on non-standard signature
> styles.
>
> This warning occurs because of incorrect use of signature tags,
> e.g. an evaluation on v4.13..v5.8 showed the use of following incorrect
> signature tags, which may seem correct, but are not standard:

I'm not a fan of this patch.

There is already a "non-standard" signature warning for
all of these cases since 2012, predating the range of this
retrospective evaluation by over 5 years and yet these
existing commits have been accepted.

The value in actual standardization and effectively
requiring specific signature style tags is quite low.

Anyone that signed a thing a particular way should be free
to sign the thing as they choose.

Most of these warnings would also still be in the tree in
the future in new patches as running checkpatch without
it emitting a message of any type isn't a requirement nor
should checkpatch use actually be required workflow.