linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: validate commit tag ordering

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: <20250802121200.665ea309@foz.lan>
Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2025 12:12:00 +0200
From: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@...nel.org>
To: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...el.com>
Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>, Geert Uytterhoeven
 <geert@...ux-m68k.org>, Hendrik Hamerlinck
 <hendrik.hamerlinck@...mernet.be>, dwaipayanray1@...il.com,
 lukas.bulwahn@...il.com, joe@...ches.com, corbet@....net,
 apw@...onical.com, skhan@...uxfoundation.org,
 linux-kernel-mentees@...ts.linux.dev, workflows@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Konstantin
 Ryabitsev <konstantin@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: validate commit tag ordering

Em Fri, 01 Aug 2025 10:55:55 +0300
Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...el.com> escreveu:

> On Thu, 31 Jul 2025, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org> wrote:
> > On 31/07/2025 13:55, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:  
> >> B4 does not follow the proper order:  
> >
> > There is no "proper order" in terms of absolute facts.  
> 
> Let's just decide whatever order b4 uses *is* the proper order, and save
> ourselves endless hours of debating! :p

I don't think it makes sense to have a "proper order" verified on
checkpatch, as some tags may appear on different places.

For instance, the custody chain was designed to have SoBs appearing
in different places:

- author(s) SoB together co-developed-by are usually the first ones;
- then patches may have been reviewed, tested, acked or passed on some
  other trees, gaining tags like tested-by, R-B, A-B, SoB, Cc;
- the subsystem maintainer will add his SoB in the end.

non-custody chain tags, like fixes, closes, reported-by...
usually comes first, but I don't think we need to enforce an specific
order.

Link, for instance, could be used on different places, with different
purposes.

At least for me, the only part that shall really follow a proper
order is the custody chain: It has to follow how the patch was handled,
from the authors at the top up to the maintainers at the bottom.

Thanks,
Mauro