linux-kernel - Re: commit tag order vs. "b4 am"

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: <52988afe-00df-47e5-b577-4e2dc36cf3d4@infradead.org>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2024 19:20:32 -0800
From: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
To: Konstantin Ryabitsev <konstantin@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>, x86@...nel.org,
 Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: commit tag order vs. "b4 am"

Hi,

On 1/30/24 17:57, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 04:47:26PM -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>>> Reinette noticed that v14 of my resctrl/SNC patch series[1] did not adhere
>>> to the tag order proscribed in Documentation/process/maintainer-tip.rst
>>> Specifically my "Signed-off-by:" was now the last tag, instead of
>>> appearing before the "Reviewed-by:" and "Tested-by" tags as it had in
>>> v13.
>>>
>>> A little digging showed that my tag had been moved to the end by "b4 am"
>>> when I used it to pick up some additonal tags.
>>>
>>> An e-mail discussion with Konstantin ensued to determine if this was
>>> a bug. Konstantin said:
>>>
>>>    This is the intended behaviour, because b4 follows the chain-of-custody
>>>    procedure. If we encounter a Signed-off-by trailer matching the identity of
>>>    the user preparing the series, we move it to the bottom to indicate that the
>>>    chain-of-custody boundary has moved to include the code review trailers
>>>    received after the initial submission.
>>>
>>>    https://lore.kernel.org/tools/20221031165842.vxr4kp6h7qnkc53l@meerkat.local/
>>>
>>>    Basically, the "Signed-off-by" trailer is special because it indicates that
>>>    everything above it is the responsibility of the person doing the sign-off. If
>>>    we kept your Signed-off-by in the original spot, then it wouldn't be clear who
>>>    collected and applied the trailers.
>>
>> I can't find "chain of custody" anywhere in Documentation/process/, nor a
>> specification or example of this ordering.
>>
>> Where did this b4 requirement come from?
> 
> Many discussions at the Maintainer Summit and on the tools/users lists. E.g.:
> https://lore.kernel.org/tools/20221031165842.vxr4kp6h7qnkc53l@meerkat.local/
> 

Not your problem, but decisions that are made at the Maintainer Summit are not
well-documented IMO. They don't get passed down to the rest of us.
Yes, I do look at Mr Corbet's summaries, but they lack sufficient detail for this.

> The chain of custody approach is the only one that makes sense because it
> allows keeping track of who applied which trailers. I know that most people
> don't think about it twice, but it matters from the perspective of process.
> If we need to put it into the official documentation, I'm happy to submit the
> patch.

I don't yet agree that the tag order change is needed, but yes, it should be
documented, so please do that.

thanks.
-- 
#Randy