linux-kernel - Re: [RESEND][PATCH] checkpatch: make sure fix-up patches have Fixes tag

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: <20220125175359.9571d0cb36844ebe69583298@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Tue, 25 Jan 2022 17:53:59 -0800
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>
Cc:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>,
        Ricardo Ribalda <ribalda@...omium.org>,
        Tomasz Figa <tfiga@...omium.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RESEND][PATCH] checkpatch: make sure fix-up patches have Fixes
 tag

On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 09:48:32 +0000 Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 9:42 AM Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 2022-01-19 at 16:46 +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > > If a patch contains "commit hash (commit name)", in other words
> > > if the patch fixes some particular commit, then require "Fixes:"
> > > tag.
> >
> > I do not like this patch as many commits merely reference a
> > previous patch and do not actually fix anything.
> 
> Agree.  It would need to be a tighter form of language to be safe to
> automatically suggest a Fixes tag.  The point of a Fixes tag is to be
> a semantically safe indicator of this relationship not relying on the
> vagaries of English for that connection.
> 
> You might be ok with something which is a tighter match on like
> "fixes <hash> (<name>)" and only suggesting a Fixes.

Also.

stable tree maintainers appear to have the habit of taking anything
which has Fixes and cheerfully backporting it.  Sometimes undesirably. 
This patch will encourage people to worsen this problem.

I wish this would simply stop, kernel-wide.  Make developers and
tree-owners actually *think* about the backport desirability.

If that were the global approach then checkpatch could

a) ask developers if they should have added "Fixes:" (this patch) then

b) if it has "Fixes:", ask developers if they should have added cc:stable.