linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4] docs: clarify rules wrt tagging other people

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: <20250210171658.5eb4dc2e@sal.lan>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2025 17:16:58 +0100
From: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@...nel.org>
To: Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@...mhuis.info>
Cc: Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@...il.com>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
 workflows@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Laurent Pinchart
 <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>, Simona Vetter
 <simona.vetter@...ll.ch>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
 Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] docs: clarify rules wrt tagging other people

Em Fri, 7 Feb 2025 09:24:56 +0100
Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@...mhuis.info> escreveu:

> On 07.02.25 02:42, Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 06, 2025 at 03:30:10PM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:  
> >> diff --git a/Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst b/Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst
> >> index dbb763a8de901d..22fa925353cf54 100644
> >> --- a/Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst
> >> +++ b/Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst
> >> @@ -268,10 +268,15 @@ The tags in common use are:
> >>   - Cc: the named person received a copy of the patch and had the
> >>     opportunity to comment on it.
> >>  
> >> -Be careful in the addition of tags to your patches, as only Cc: is appropriate
> >> -for addition without the explicit permission of the person named; using
> >> -Reported-by: is fine most of the time as well, but ask for permission if
> >> -the bug was reported in private.
> >> +Be careful in the addition of the aforementioned tags to your patches, as all
> >> +except for Cc:, Reported-by:, and Suggested-by: need explicit permission of the
> >> +person named. For those three implicit permission is sufficient if the person
> >> +contributed to the Linux kernel using that name and email address according
> >> +to the lore archives or the commit history -- and in case of Reported-by:
> >> +and Suggested-by: did the reporting or suggestion in public. Note,
> >> +bugzilla.kernel.org is a public place in this sense, but email addresses
> >> +used there are private; so do not expose them in tags, unless the person
> >> +used them in earlier contributions.  
> > 
> > So for example I can only include Tested-by: when a contributor who tested
> > my patch explicitly offer the tag by replying to it i.e. with the tag, right?  
> At some point a text must leave the interpretation up to the reader. I
> would say a "yes, that's okay" to the question "is it okay to add a
> 'tested-by' tag in the patch description; note, your name and email
> address will then end up in the commit history and can not be removed
> there" is sufficient "permission" as well.

For me, it sounds reasonable to accept a public reply about someone
testing a patch as a reason to add a tested-by tag. Yet, I don't add 
tested-by myself based on replies. What I do when someone sends 
a reply saying that the patch was tested is to request the tester to 
reply with a tested-by with a short description about the test scenario.

IMO it is important to ask it to the tester, not only to have an explicit
tag, but also because as a simple tested-by without a test scenario is 
usually not very useful. 

Regards,
Mauro