linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/tools: fix line number reported for malformed lines

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: <CANiq72mHk4E2fr+6w2zn0t=Fy+-CCqE6uTFou=2+3uLiTDr_gw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2024 11:40:53 +0100
From: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
To: Valentin Obst <kernel@...entinobst.de>
Cc: a.hindborg@...sung.com, david@...dahead.eu, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, 
	hpa@...or.com, john.m.baublitz@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	mhiramat@...nel.org, mingo@...nel.org, mingo@...hat.com, ojeda@...nel.org, 
	peterz@...radead.org, sergio.collado@...il.com, stable@...r.kernel.org, 
	tglx@...utronix.de, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/tools: fix line number reported for malformed lines

On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 10:51 PM Valentin Obst <kernel@...entinobstde> wrote:
>
> Thanks!
>
> Cross checked this as well, can confirm your assessment. Thanks for
> bringing this up.

My pleasure!

> Absolutely, without him reporting the test failure and narrowing down the
> config I'd have never looked at this file. Adding him for **both** is fair.
> (This particular fix was not discussed on Zulip though, its just something
> I noticed along the way.)

In that case, up to you -- whatever you consider fair for this particular patch.

> Didn't add it because the discussion does not mention this particular
> issue, but it might indeed be good for some context.

Makes sense -- I saw the [1] reference and I thought it could be a
nice complement to it, but it is true that it may be not that useful,
so please feel free to leave it out.

> Will this need a v2, or are all of the 'Fixes', 'Reported-By',
> 'Debugged-By', 'Tested-By', 'Reviewed-By' and 'Link' tags something that
> maintainers may add when merging?

Typically, tags are picked up by maintainers when they apply the patch
(if it is the last version, otherwise you would already pick them up
in the next version you send).

However, in this case, since we have the Cc stable@ and you also have
the most context to decide on the tags (e.g. for the Reported-by
etc.), I would send a v2.

Thanks!

Cheers,
Miguel