linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] watchdog: iTCO_wdt: Fix detection of SMI-off case

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:   Mon, 26 Jul 2021 16:05:37 +0200
From:   Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@...mens.com>
To:     Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc:     Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ux-watchdog.org>,
        linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Christian Storm <christian.storm@...mens.com>,
        Mantas Mikulėnas <grawity@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] watchdog: iTCO_wdt: Fix detection of SMI-off case

On 26.07.21 15:59, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 7/26/21 6:40 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 3:04 PM Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@...mens.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 26.07.21 14:01, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 2:46 PM Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@...mens.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@...mens.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> Obviously, the test needs to run against the register content, not its
>>>>> address.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fixes: cb011044e34c ("watchdog: iTCO_wdt: Account for rebooting on
>>>>> second timeout")
>>>>> Reported-by: Mantas Mikulėnas <grawity@...il.com>
>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@...mens.com>
>>>>
>>>> Missed SoB of the submitter (hint: configure your Git to make sure
>>>> that submitter and author are the same in terms of name-email).
>>>
>>> The signed off is there. Not sure what you are referring to.
>>
>> Nope. It's not. The sign of that is the From: line in the body of the
>> email. It happens when the submitter != author. And SoB of the former
>> one is absent. But what is strange is that reading them here I haven't
>> found the difference. Maybe one is in UTF-8 while the other is not and
>> a unicode character degraded to Latin-1 or so?
>>
> 
> I have no idea why there is an additional From:, but both From:
> tags in the e-mail source are exact matches, and both match the
> name and e-mail address in Signed-off-by:. I agree with Jan,
> the SoB is there.

There is one unknown in this equation, and that is the anti-email system
operated by a our IT and some company in Redmond. But I haven't received
any complaints that my outgoing emails are negatively affected by it
(incoming are, but that's a different story...). If you received
something mangled, Andy, please share the source of that email. I'm
happy to escalate internally - and externally.

For the potential case they were mangled or in case I'm submitting via a
real email provider, my scripts always add a "From:" to the body of my
patches. Outgoing, that From matched my Signed-off.

Jan

-- 
Siemens AG, T RDA IOT
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux