linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the block tree

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: <6cf57986-45c6-fb00-eb19-c7f4aeac82a5@samba.org>
Date:   Fri, 19 Mar 2021 14:10:19 +0100
From:   Stefan Metzmacher <metze@...ba.org>
To:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the block tree


Am 19.03.21 um 14:08 schrieb Jens Axboe:
> On 3/19/21 2:02 AM, Stefan Metzmacher wrote:
>>
>> Am 19.03.21 um 00:25 schrieb Jens Axboe:
>>> On 3/18/21 5:16 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> Commit
>>>>
>>>>   c2c6c067c050 ("io_uring: remove structures from include/linux/io_uring.h")
>>>>
>>>> is missing a Signed-off-by from its author.
>>>
>>> Stefan, let me know if you're OK with me adding that, not sure how I missed
>>> that.
>>
>> Yes, sure :-)
>> I guess you removed it while adding 'Link:'
> 
> That was b4, I don't add those manually. But maybe it stripped those too,
> annoying...
> 
>> You may want to remove cc: stable from 3aab52c9a708f7183460d368700181ef0c2a09e6
>> ("io_uring: imply MSG_NOSIGNAL for send[msg]()/recv[msg]() calls")
>> for now.
>>
>> I'll want to do some more test with it on 5.12,
>> I guess we'd then have to backport it to stable as part of the
>> io_thread worker backport. I'll post some more details later
>> to the io-uring list.
> 
> Sure, let's do that. I also dropped the short link sever as well for now.
> I do like it on principle, but it does have a risk of breaking valid
> use cases.

Thanks, I'll resubmit that with the MSG_WAITALL logic.

metze