linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 2/3] ACPI: allow longer device IDs

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: <CAMj1kXH=qohu1Wnn4dQfFqVOszD0HLasJJANSBYYBhYKrgxTKw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 27 Feb 2022 12:59:15 +0100
From:   Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
To:     Alexander Graf <graf@...zon.com>
Cc:     "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>,
        Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Linux Crypto Mailing List <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
        ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/3] ACPI: allow longer device IDs

On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 at 12:48, Alexander Graf <graf@...zon.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 27.02.22 12:43, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 at 12:39, Alexander Graf <graf@...zon.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 27.02.22 11:47, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 at 11:30, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org> wrote:
> >>>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 at 11:03, Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@...c4.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On 2/27/22, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org> wrote:
> >>>>>> On Sat, 26 Feb 2022 at 23:07, Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@...c4.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> From: Alexander Graf <graf@...zon.com>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Please don't invent patch authors like that. Alex's patch that started
> >>>>>> this discussion was completely different.
> >>>>> Considering the investigative side ("why won't the _CID match?") and
> >>>>> most the commit message were Alex's, and that those things comprise
> >>>>> 95% of what this patch is, and that the code change itself isn't even
> >>>>> part of anything Turing complete, I most certainly did not feel
> >>>>> comfortable stripping Alex's authorship. Instead I added myself as a
> >>>>> co-author at the bottom. When in doubt, err on the side of crediting
> >>>>> others. Alex also took a look at this patch, I am under the impression
> >>>>> of at least, before it went out. Let's minimize the paperwork
> >>>>> policing, okay? I think it'd make for a much more pleasant space here.
> >>> ...
> >>>> Please stop with the ad hominems in response to criticism on factual
> >>>> aspects of your code. Putting someone else's authorship on code they
> >>>> did not write is not cool, and pointing that out is *not* what is
> >>>> making this space unpleasant.
> >>>> And 'paperwork policing' is sadly an important aspect of a high
> >>>> profile open source project such as Linux.
> >>>>
> >>> I typed this before reading your message on IRC, which reads:
> >>>
> >>> "Alex looked at that patch before i sent it out and did not object to
> >>> me keeping his authorship. I wouldn't have sent it out otherwise."
> >>>
> >>> and so I stand corrected if this is true. But please, next time,
> >>> please be more clear about these things.
> >>
> >> Yes, he did reach out to me on a separate channel and I told him to go
> >> for it :). Sorry if I created some confusion with that.
> >>
> > No, my bad. But in my defence, everyone on the original thread knows
> > that this single oneline change was suggested by Jason, not you, and
> > so seeing him posting it as your patch did confuse me a little.
>
>
> The idea came up 1y ago in conversations with Adrian when we tried to
> make _CID matching work. Unfortunately I did not file a patent for the
> mechanism to increase the array size until data fits :). It's such a
> revolutionary invention!
>
> Back to seriousness, I'm pretty indifferent on the attribution for it.
> What I'm more interested in is a solution that allows us to match the
> correct identifier :). My take is that Jason just wanted to be nice and
> was trying to give credit.
>

Giving credit is nice, but I do think that obfuscating authorship like
this is generally not preferred.

But in this particular case, it hardly matters, so let's not debate
this any further.