linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] irqchip/gic-v3-its: fix raw_local_irq

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: <ef7592ced999db8f7affad6814e4bbfffe8d1853.camel@infradead.org>
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2024 18:01:47 +0000
From: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
To: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
Cc: Tomas Krcka <tomas.krcka@...il.com>,
 linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,  nh-open-source@...zon.com, Tomas
 Krcka <krckatom@...zon.de>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Hagar
 Hemdan <hagarhem@...zon.com>,  linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] irqchip/gic-v3-its: fix raw_local_irq_restore() called
 with IRQs enabled

On Mon, 2024-12-30 at 17:09 +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Dec 2024 15:21:38 +0000,
> David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org> wrote:
> > 
> > [1  <text/plain; UTF-8 (quoted-printable)>]
> > On Mon, 2024-12-30 at 14:28 +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > > 
> > > Two problems here:
> > > 
> > > - there is no "From Tomas Krcka <krckatom@...zon.de>" at the beginning
> > >   of the patch, which is needed since you are posting from a gmail.com
> > >   address
> > > 
> > > - there is no SoB using your gmail.com address, which is needed since
> > >   this patch appears to be from your Amazon doppelganger.
> > 
> > The latter isn't needed if you have the former, surely?
> 
> I don't see why we shouldn't have it. AFAIC, this is a different
> sender, and I'm pretty sure tglx applies the same policy.

Not in my experience. I send patches like this all the time and don't
recall anyone ever complaining. People often have to work around broken
corporate email but still want to have the authorship correctly
attributed.

In the git log you can find plenty of commits containing
'Link:.*lore.kernel.org.*dwmw2@...radead.org' which I sent from my own
address, for which the Author and SoB are both @amazon.

Let's see if I can find a tglx one... 

https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240802135555.564941-2-dwmw2@infradead.org
which became https://git.kernel.org/torvalds/c/70e6b7d9ae3c6 for
example?

The point of the From: line at the top of the email body is to
*replace* the one in the header. Or put another way, the one in the
header is used as a fallback if there is no explicit From: in the body
of the message.

Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst phrases it the second way:

The ``from`` line must be the very first line in the message body,
and has the form:

        From: Patch Author <author@...mple.com>

The ``from`` line specifies who will be credited as the author of the
patch in the permanent changelog.  If the ``from`` line is missing,
then the ``From:`` line from the email header will be used to determine
the patch author in the changelog.

> > I've lost count of the number of patches I've posted over the decades
> > from my function non-corporate email address, just using a From: and
> > Signed-off-by: in the body for my work address. We've always accepted
> > that, and git-am does the right thing (discarding the actual From:
> > address from the headers of the email).
> 
> Is that the royal 'We'?

Nah, it's been a while since I've been an active maintainer of anything
and applying patches from email. :)

Download attachment "smime.p7s" of type "application/pkcs7-signature" (5069 bytes)