linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] x86/cpu: Adjust the error message when BIOS does not support SGX

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: <98F3D161C5A382FC+3062fe22-24a9-42e7-9ae4-83c5047c7ec0@uniontech.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2024 18:37:45 +0800
From: WangYuli <wangyuli@...ontech.com>
To: "Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@...el.com>, "seanjc@...gle.com"
 <seanjc@...gle.com>, "bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>,
 "dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
 "hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>, "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
 "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
 "xiangzelong@...ontech.com" <xiangzelong@...ontech.com>
Cc: "linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org" <linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org>,
 "jarkko@...nel.org" <jarkko@...nel.org>, "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
 "bp@...e.de" <bp@...e.de>,
 "guanwentao@...ontech.com" <guanwentao@...ontech.com>,
 "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
 "sean.j.christopherson@...el.com" <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
 "haitao.huang@...ux.intel.com" <haitao.huang@...ux.intel.com>,
 "wubo@...ontech.com" <wubo@...ontech.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] x86/cpu: Adjust the error message when BIOS does not
 support SGX


On 2024/8/25 16:49, Huang, Kai wrote:
> Hi Yuli,
>
> When Thomas pointed out the "Signed-off-by chain is invalid" in v2:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/87zfpx4a0q.ffs@tglx/T/#mdc19b00c10177f3add9deaf505211bf8b3ec7110
>
> I think it meant you either need to have a Co-developed-by for Zelong Xiang,
> or you should remove his/her SoB.  The reason is the patch is from you, but
> not Zelong.
>
> The SoB chain needs to reflect the chronological history of this patch.

I get it now.

It's easy for this aspect to be overlooked or compromised when a patch 
is passed around among different developers.

Your rigorous approach is truly admirable.

>    E.g.,
> the SoB chain:
>
> 	From: You
> 	Co-developed-by: Zelong
> 	Signed-off-by: Zelong
> 	Signed-off-by: You
>
> .. means the patch was originally generated by you, but Zelong also
> participated in developing this patch before you finally signed off it.
>
> For this one line code change patch, it doesn't make a lot sense to have
> multiple developers, so I think you can just remove Zelong's SoB.

Since the goal is to ensure the SoB chain is as authentic as 
possible,there's no need to delete it unless the chain is unreasonably long.

I'll send a patch-v4 to fix it.


Thanks

-- 
WangYuli