linux-kernel - Re: Missing signoffs in the hte 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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:   Tue, 2 May 2023 09:03:15 +0900
From:   Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:     Dipen Patel <dipenp@...dia.com>
Cc:     linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: Missing signoffs in the hte tree

On Mon, May 01, 2023 at 12:40:16PM -0700, Dipen Patel wrote:
> On 4/24/23 5:07 AM, Mark Brown wrote:

> >   1af0f6b5060cf ("hte: tegra-194: Use proper includes")
> >   3798a6e3b6a89 ("hte: Use device_match_of_node()")
> >   981501927e482 ("hte: tegra-194: Fix off by one in tegra_hte_map_to_line_id()")
> >   58e1189d075a4 ("hte: tegra: fix 'struct of_device_id' build error")
> >   499c35fe9bf2e ("hte: Use of_property_present() for testing DT property presence")

> > in the hte tree for today are missing a Signed-off-by from their
> > committers.

> Shouldn't Acked-by tag from me (maintainer of the HTE tree) enough? I mean it does imply signed-off-by, right?

No, not at all - the signoff has specific meaning with regard to the
developer certificate of origin [1] - whoever applies the commit needs
to supply a signoff to say that they're asserting that the DCO is being
followed.  This is separate to review (though if a maintainer is
applying a patch that's generally at least as good as an ack so no need
for anything else).

[1] https://developercertificate.org/

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)