linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] drivers/core: Replace lockdep_set_novalidate

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:   Thu, 9 Feb 2023 10:50:13 +0900
From:   Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
        syzkaller <syzkaller@...glegroups.com>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        USB list <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
        Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drivers/core: Replace lockdep_set_novalidate_class() with
 unique class keys

On 2023/02/09 9:46, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 8, 2023 at 4:23 PM Tetsuo Handa
> <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp> wrote:
>>
>> Did I misuse the Co-developed-by: tag? I added your Signed-off-by: tag because
>> https://docs.kernel.org/process/submitting-patches.html#when-to-use-acked-by-cc-and-co-developed-by
>> states that "every Co-developed-by: must be immediately followed by a Signed-off-by:
>> of the associated co-author."
> 
> That doesn't mean that *You* can add a Signed-off-by:
> 
> Nobody can certify sign-off for anybody else. Read the sign-off rules:
> you can add your *own* sign-off if the rules hold, but you can't sign
> off for somebody else.
> 
> The "Co-developed-by: must be immediately followed by a
> Signed-off-by:" thing only means that if there are multiple
> developers, then ALL DEVELOPERS MUST SIGN OFF.
> 
> It absolutely does *NOT* mean that you adding a Co-developed-by means
> that you then add a Signed-off-by.
> 
> That's like faking somebody else's signature on some paperwork. Never
> do that either, and it's hopefully obvious why.

OK. Then, how to handle a case where a developer suggested a diff but
he/she does not propose that diff as a formal patch?

Hillf is suggesting diffs for many bugs (an example is
https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?id=ee93abc9a483645fc0914811af9c12da355a2e3e ),
and some of diffs look reasonable/correct, but Hillf never tries to propose as
a formal patch, and that diff is left forgotten and that bug remains unfixed.

I don't want to steal Hillf's effort. But given that I can't add Co-developed-by:
and Signed-off-by: on behalf of Hillf, how can I propose a formal patch in a way
that preserves Hillf's effort? Is Suggested-by: suitable for this case?