linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] cxl/mbox: Remove redundant dev

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, 04 May 2023 12:46:37 +0200
From:   "Fabio M. De Francesco" <fmdefrancesco@...il.com>
To:     Alison Schofield <alison.schofield@...el.com>
Cc:     raghuhack78@...il.com, linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org,
        ira.weiny@...el.com, bwidawsk@...nel.org, dan.j.williams@...el.com,
        vishal.l.verma@...el.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] cxl/mbox: Remove redundant dev_err() after failed mem
 alloc

On giovedì 4 maggio 2023 00:03:07 CEST Alison Schofield wrote:
> On Wed, May 03, 2023 at 08:32:37PM +0200, Fabio wrote:
> > On venerdì 28 aprile 2023 03:22:34 CEST Raghu H wrote:

[...]

> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Raghu H <raghuhack78@...il.com>
> > 
> > Is "Raghu H" the name you sign legal documents with?
> 
> Fabio,
> Rather than asking a specific question to determine if this is a
> valid SOB, let's just point folks to the documentation to figure
> it out themselves.
> I'm aware that the 'sign legal documents' test
> has been used in the past, but kernel only actually requires a
> known identity.
> 
> https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v4.17/process/submitting-patches.html#sign-you
> r-work-the-developer-s-certificate-of-origin
> https://github.com/cncf/foundation/blob/659fd32c86dc/dco-guidelines.md

Alison,

Thanks for your suggestions.

I have just a couple of questions about this issue...

1) How do we know that the "real name", which the Linux official documentation 
refers to, should be interpreted in accordance to the document pointed by the 
second link you provided? 

I mean, how can we be sure that the official documentation should be 
interpreted according to the second link, since it doesn't even cite that 
document from CNCF? 

Can you provide links to documents / LKML's threads that state agreement of 
our Community about the "relaxed" interpretation by CNCF?

2) It looks that some maintainers (e.g., Greg K-H) still interpret "[] using 
your real name (sorry, no pseudonyms or anonymous contributions.)" in a 
"strict" and "common" sense. 

Can you remember that Greg refused all patches from "Kloudifold" and why? If 
not, please take a look at the following two questions / objections from Greg: 
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-staging/ZCQkPr6t8IOvF6bk@kroah.com/ and 
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-staging/ZBCjK2BXhfiFooeO@kroah.com/.

It seems that this issue it's not yet settled. 
Am I overlooking something?

Again thanks,

Fabio

> > If not, please send a new version signed-off-by your full legal name.
> > Otherwise... sorry for the noise.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > 
> > Fabio