linux-kernel - Re: [Linux-kernel-mentees] [PATCH -mmots] checkpatch: add fix 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]

Message-ID: <X8k7srxYPa275pXQ@kroah.com>
Date:   Thu, 3 Dec 2020 20:25:38 +0100
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>
Cc:     Aditya <yashsri421@...il.com>, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
        linux-kernel-mentees@...ts.linuxfoundation.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Linux-kernel-mentees] [PATCH -mmots] checkpatch: add fix for
 non-standard signature - co-authored-by

On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 08:00:58PM +0100, Lukas Bulwahn wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 7:56 PM Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 11:59:54AM +0100, Lukas Bulwahn wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 10:59 AM Aditya <yashsri421@...il.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 3/12/20 12:26 am, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, 2020-12-03 at 00:00 +0530, Aditya Srivastava wrote:
> > > > >> Currently, checkpatch.pl warns us for BAD_SIGN_OFF on the usage of
> > > > >> non-standard signatures.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> An evaluation on v4.13..v5.8 showed that out of 539 warnings due to
> > > > >> non-standard signatures, 43 are due to the use of 'Co-authored-by'
> > > > >> tag, which may seem correct, but is not standard.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> The standard signature equivalent for 'Co-authored-by' is
> > > > >> 'Co-developed-by'.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm not going to ack this as I don't mind non-standard signatures.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > What do you suggest?
> > > > Should I drop this patch and move on?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Joe does not ack this, but he also does not nack it.
> > >
> > > You either move on (which is perfectly fine), or
> > >
> > > you either wait that Andrew Morton reviews it and accepts it because
> > > he thinks it useful, or
> > >
> > > you reach out to the git committers that have been using
> > > Co-authored-by in the past and ask them if this kind of feature would
> > > have been helpful for them and you get an ack from them that convinces
> > > Andrew Morton to pick this.
> >
> > co-developed-by is the correct tag for this.  It is documented exactly
> > for this reason, please do not try to use something that is not already
> > accepted by the kernel developers for this type of thing.
> >
> 
> Well, Greg, so do we get your Acked-by on a feature that checkpatch
> warns that Co-authored-by is non-standard and that then fixes up the
> patch automatically to Co-developed-by with checkpatch --fix?
> 
> If so, please add your Acked-by on this patch here and let Andrew know
> to pick it...

I have not reviewed the patch, sorry, just was commenting on the fact
that we do have a standard for this.

thanks,

greg k-h