linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 00/13] Add support for NIST P521 to ecdsa

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-Id: <CZZKCJGKVP5N.3GUU48O4Y62KQ@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2024 18:19:54 +0200
From: "Jarkko Sakkinen" <jarkko@...nel.org>
To: "Jarkko Sakkinen" <jarkko@...nel.org>, "Konstantin Ryabitsev"
 <konstantin@...uxfoundation.org>, "Lukas Wunner" <lukas@...ner.de>
Cc: "Stefan Berger" <stefanb@...ux.ibm.com>, "Stefan Berger"
 <stefanb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, <keyrings@...r.kernel.org>,
 <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>, <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
 <davem@...emloft.net>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
 <saulo.alessandre@....jus.br>, <bbhushan2@...vell.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 00/13] Add support for NIST P521 to ecdsa

On Thu Mar 21, 2024 at 6:17 PM EET, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Wed Mar 20, 2024 at 4:41 PM EET, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 06:40:33AM +0100, Lukas Wunner wrote:
> > > If Herbert applies patches with "b4 am --apply-cover-trailers" or
> > > "b4 shazam --apply-cover-trailers" (I don't know if he does),
> > > it is completely irrelevant whether Stefan strips my Tested-by from
> > > individual patches:  It will automatically be re-added when the
> > > series gets applied.
> >
> > Applying trailers sent to the cover letter is now the default behaviour in
> > 0.13, so this flag is no longer required (it does nothing).
> >
> > -K
>
> The whole policy of how to put tested-by in my experience is subsystem
> dependent.
>
> https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/submitting-patches.html
>
> Official documentation only speaks about patches so perhaps it should
> then be refined for the series.
>
> I'm hearing about this option in b4 for the first time in my life.

It is also pretty relevant to know when you read the commit log e.g.
when bisecting what was *actually* tested.

If you put tested-by to whole series it probably means that you've
tested the uapi and are getting the expected results. Thus in this
case it would 13/13 that is *actually* tested.

Putting tested-by to every possible patch only degrades the quality
of the commit log.

I don't see how this is "irrelevant".

BR, Jarkko