linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the xfs 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20221004225012.501e11ed@canb.auug.org.au>
Date:   Tue, 4 Oct 2022 22:50:12 +1100
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc:     "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org,
        Stephen Zhang <starzhangzsd@...il.com>,
        Shida Zhang <zhangshida@...inos.cn>,
        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 xfs tree

Hi Dave,

On Tue, 4 Oct 2022 09:21:03 +1100 Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com> wrote:
>
> The commit matches exactly what was sent to the list. It's just
> that the patch was sent from a personal email address with a
> corporate signoff.
> 
> Since when has that been an issue?  I -personally- have been doing
> this for well over a decade and I'm pretty sure there are lots of
> other people who also do this.

If you are happy (as the maintainer), then fine.  My script just could
not connect those 2 email addresses.  I check for matches between the
address itself (the part between the <>) or a match between the "name"
part (before the <>).  If either matches (or it is obvious) then I
don't report it.

I have reported very few of these.

> Hence if this is wrong, then we've got a tooling problem with b4.
> Why does b4 allow this rather than warn/fail if it's not actually
> allowed in the linux-next tree?

These reports are more of "is this right/was this a slipup?" rather
than "this is not allowed" i.e.. there are circumstances under which
the actual author does not (or cannot) provide a Signed-off-by and that
is OK.
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped