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

Message-ID: <118a560d-9e5f-4bc4-b0d2-ee0b3d6a5120@infradead.org>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2024 16:47:26 -0800
From: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
To: Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>, x86@...nel.org
Cc: Konstantin Ryabitsev <konstantin@...uxfoundation.org>,
 Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: commit tag order vs. "b4 am"



On 1/30/24 14:34, Tony Luck 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?

> Question: Do the TIP maintainers agree with Konstantin's opinion that
> the Signed-off-by: includes all the tags applied prior? If so, this
> should be called out in Documentation/process/maintainer-tip.rst
> 
> 
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240126223837.21835-1-tony.luck@intel.com/
> 

thanks.
-- 
#Randy