linux-kernel - Re: [Intel-gfx] linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drm-intel 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <YRIcTTsEF0Kg7F8K@phenom.ffwll.local>
Date:   Tue, 10 Aug 2021 08:27:25 +0200
From:   Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>
To:     Matt Roper <matthew.d.roper@...el.com>
Cc:     Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@...ux.intel.com>,
        DRI <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        Intel Graphics <intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
        Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@...el.com>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the
 drm-intel tree

On Mon, Aug 09, 2021 at 09:19:39AM -0700, Matt Roper wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 09, 2021 at 04:05:59PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 06, 2021 at 09:36:56AM +0300, Joonas Lahtinen wrote:
> > > Hi Matt,
> > > 
> > > Always use the dim tooling when applying patches, it will do the right
> > > thing with regards to adding the S-o-b.
> > 
> > fd.o server rejects any pushes that haven't been done by dim, so how did
> > this get through?
> 
> I definitely used dim for all of these patches, but I'm not sure how I
> lost my s-o-b on this one.  Maybe when I edited the commit message after
> 'dim extract-tags' I accidentally deleted an extra line when I removed
> the extract-tags marker?  It's the only patch where the line is missing,
> so it's almost certainly human error on my part rather than something
> dim did wrong.

Yeah that's an expected failure model, and dim is supposed to catch that
by rechecking for sobs when you push. See dim_push_branch ->
checkpatch_commit_push_range in dim. So you can hand-edit stuff however
you want, dim /should/ catch it when pushing. That it didn't is kinda
confusing and I'd like to know why that slipped through.

> > Matt, can you pls figure out and type up the patch to
> > plug that hole?
> 
> Are you referring to a patch for dim here?  The i915 patch has already
> landed, so we can't change its commit message now.

Yeah dim, not drm-intel, that can't be fixed anymore because it's all
baked in.
-Daniel

> 
> 
> Matt
> 
> > 
> > Thanks, Daniel
> > 
> > > 
> > > Regards, Joonas
> > > 
> > > Quoting Stephen Rothwell (2021-07-15 07:18:54)
> > > > Hi all,
> > > > 
> > > > Commit
> > > > 
> > > >   db47fe727e1f ("drm/i915/step: s/<platform>_revid_tbl/<platform>_revids")
> > > > 
> > > > is missing a Signed-off-by from its committer.
> > > > 
> > > > -- 
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Stephen Rothwell
> > 
> > -- 
> > Daniel Vetter
> > Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
> > http://blog.ffwll.ch
> 
> -- 
> Matt Roper
> Graphics Software Engineer
> VTT-OSGC Platform Enablement
> Intel Corporation
> (916) 356-2795

-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch