Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210917061104.2680133-1-brendanhiggins@google.com>
 <20210917061104.2680133-2-brendanhiggins@google.com> <202109170808.629688A460@keescook>
In-Reply-To: <202109170808.629688A460@keescook>
From:   Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>
Date:   Wed, 29 Sep 2021 13:25:07 -0700
Message-ID: <CAFd5g47YMnMzR+dtSLy9NvMb4TkeDkbSNt3qs-kvfLo_0y9-eg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/6] gcc-plugins/structleak: add makefile var for
 disabling structleak
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc:     shuah@kernel.org, davidgow@google.com, arnd@arndb.de,
        rafael@kernel.org, jic23@kernel.org, lars@metafoo.de,
        ulf.hansson@linaro.org, andreas.noever@gmail.com,
        michael.jamet@intel.com, mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com,
        yehezkelshb@gmail.com, masahiroy@kernel.org,
        michal.lkml@markovi.net, ndesaulniers@google.com,
        linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, kunit-dev@googlegroups.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org,
        gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, linux-iio@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org, linux-usb@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org, linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Sep 17, 2021 at 8:48 AM Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 11:10:59PM -0700, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> > KUnit and structleak don't play nice, so add a makefile variable for
> > enabling structleak when it complains.
> >
> > Co-developed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
>
> For a C-d-b, also include a S-o-b:
>
> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
>
> But otherwise, yes, this is good. :)

Yeah, I know that's necessary for the patch to be accepted, but in
this case, I don't think your original version of this (it wasn't
actually a patch) had a S-o-b on it, so I didn't want to say that you
had signed off on something that you didn't.

I have run into this situation before and handled it this way -
letting the co-developer sign off on the list. Is this something I
should avoid in the future?

In any case, I will resubmit this now that I have your S-o-b.

Thanks!