linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] Add release hook to LSM

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: <d702766d-01e2-a5b2-08ac-3a16befa7ab5@alu.unizg.hr>
Date:   Tue, 11 Apr 2023 11:09:25 +0200
From:   Mirsad Goran Todorovac <mirsad.todorovac@....unizg.hr>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] Add release hook to LSM

On 10.3.2023. 21:14, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 09:02:18PM +0100, Mirsad Goran Todorovac wrote:
>> On 10. 03. 2023. 20:47, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 08:42:00PM +0100, Mirsad Goran Todorovac wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Add release() hook to the definition of the LSM modules, to enable calling
>>>> destructors and deallocating allocated resources cleanly.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Mirsad Goran Todorovac <mirsad.todorovac@....unizg.hr>
>>>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
>>>
>>> I haven't given you this tag. Sorry, you must not add something
>>> which was not explicitly given.
> 
>> This change could have long lasting consequences if approved, and I am not
>> continuing the patch submission without your mentoring and approval.
>>
>> It is true that I assumed that you have reviewed the patch, but you did not
>> explicitly give the Reviewed-by tag.
>>
>> But I am rather new to this patch submission process, and please would you
>> please mentor me to do this the right way.
> 
> We have a nice documentation for that [1]. Please, read it in full.
> If some questions left, do not hesitate to ask.
> 
> [1]: https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/submitting-patches.html

Hi,

I am catching up on this, and now I see that my Reviewed-by: tag to the patch
proposal you just suggested was way off.

I apologise once again.

I was in clear violation of the Code of Conduct, though I thought I was doing
just what it was demanded.

There is beginner's luck, but there are also newbie errors.

Reviewed-by: as per patch submission instructions implies much more than I have
assumed when writing it.

But they say that a fault that makes one humble is better than the success that
makes him arrogant.

Thank you for taking the time from your busy schedule to instruct me to read
that fine manual, which I ought to have done by myself in the first place.

Thanks again for all the mentoring on the patch submission process.

I haven't Cc:-ed the developers and maintainers not to fill their mailboxes needlessly,
but it goes to the list so this is a public formal apology.

Best regards,
Mirsad

-- 
Mirsad Todorovac
System engineer
Faculty of Graphic Arts | Academy of Fine Arts
University of Zagreb
Republic of Croatia, the European Union

Sistem inženjer
Grafički fakultet | Akademija likovnih umjetnosti
Sveučilište u Zagrebu