netdev - Re: pull-request: mac80211 2019-10-08

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: <5fa6cece698e96345dd8cdc19ebb645ec9f6da73.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Date:   Wed, 09 Oct 2019 08:36:57 +0200
From:   Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
Cc:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: pull-request: mac80211 2019-10-08

Hi Jakub,

> Pulled into net. Let me know if did it wrong :)

Oops, didn't know it was your "turn" again, guess I haven't been reading
netdev enough.

Looks good, but I didn't think this could possibly go wrong :)

> FWIW there was this little complaint from checkpatch:
[...]
> WARNING: Duplicate signature
> #14: 
> Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@...el.com>

Hmm, yeah, so ... I was actually not sure about that and I guess it
slipped by. Most of the time, I've been editing it out, but what happens
is this:

 1) I send a patch to our internal tree, to fix up some things. Unless
    it's really urgent, I don't necessarily post it externally at the
    same time. This obviously has my S-o-b.
 2) Luca goes through our internal tree and sends out the patches to the
    list, adding his S-o-b.
 3) For the patches to the stack, I apply them, and git-am adds my S-o-b
    again because it's not the last.

So now we have

S-o-b: Johannes
S-o-b: Luca
S-o-b: Johannes

If I edit it just to be "S-o-b: Johannes", then it looks strange because
I've applied a patch from the list and dropped an S-o-b. It's still my
code, and Luca doesn't normally have to make any changes to it, but ...
This is what I've normally been doing I think, but it always felt a bit
weird because then it's not the patch I actually applied, it's like I
pretend the whole process described above never happened.

If I edit and remove my first S-o-b then it's weird because the Author
isn't the first S-o-b, making it look like I didn't sign it off when I
authored it?

If I edit and remove the last S-o-b, how did it end up in my tree?

So basically my first S-o-b is certifying (a) or maybe occasionally (b)
under the DCO, while Luca's and my second are certifying (c) (and maybe
occasionally also (a) or (b) if any changes were made.)

Is there any convention on this that I could adhere to? :)

johannes