From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B8A6C4332F for ; Wed, 29 Sep 2021 20:25:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F022E61529 for ; Wed, 29 Sep 2021 20:25:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1346706AbhI2U1B (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Sep 2021 16:27:01 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:41540 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1346712AbhI2U1B (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Sep 2021 16:27:01 -0400 Received: from mail-pl1-x62d.google.com (mail-pl1-x62d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::62d]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A96F1C061767 for ; Wed, 29 Sep 2021 13:25:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pl1-x62d.google.com with SMTP id y1so2336355plk.10 for ; Wed, 29 Sep 2021 13:25:19 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=BUBvo02+e+5GDikUUveOdH1uDHUT9sKYGIFKKqY5fqU=; b=SXHyTGNpWjeYTLxcIMpnSmPDFAjptH6ZmfzCgx9YzmZjU1V8uKZu8G3t/G5gEVRgqQ ybCdjCPKGm9EUpwMHEJB8/rnNWmV/+nfKszYb9nUEtdsxMGbna3my2JupqTd0pqxz/ck LRx8lxH6GYfkV9+xoTRQ266xJ7+TpMqYISBY4tR1o+xnykRnYJ/6clseru7yrlk1m2zM ACZFQIsfBD4XAxrElcUsgNEHbdu8xKHCfbHV63ipJdb9czfDsiiyCSUALPdNC66iG+bu gIheiodGXBCrjT/nQYttErY+l2+vPfbu9DTuVrNxElKOR7AIzXZ/zyyTO0X1kLdDSqlM oDpA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=BUBvo02+e+5GDikUUveOdH1uDHUT9sKYGIFKKqY5fqU=; b=tqi96TgGK6VBjpMF2T8eYG65JP0pDH/qosjdfZwjtnjV7Rkt9jjb6VfLlLq6hmE0Bo e3VejYVRzD41K02EAy6igRXkAk19Fba0n1erlWn+px7eqvY2/5ePw9PiS2KqIHWTmuyq kyKV35E1CGS+r6xGboWQGQ2Sg8ZLG/E6/bvahU5DDWBFf/VIXEnpD85MsnOHt05soUwe le6M/vwTgj4C5luO5KKgukqq8nndOeSYjhGGOs7U5aAQv7rlm1I/lcejzIJtS8UVxs0p 06ae0fdMmzIu9y0fPltpsG0BY9po0tAwJdrGhqHR1xijAZw0tCeVxmrf0BE3k5UJZfmJ csYg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530uI33agd57w7sP4SO6NifvD/5OvXsZKORIwkBETU61XfBDpE7O 3Vo34HcxQ6VNdv/kIIpDSRomLLPlpB83lQi9iUb/NQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxpJOgC3k+TWaoTKANUQVPD/FVHVFgCe1rsICLyPH/Z9FIobrEZqMMPj8b91Xa2Z3xbADXcFUSb99b620EiBS8= X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:3108:: with SMTP id gc8mr8269060pjb.63.1632947118847; Wed, 29 Sep 2021 13:25:18 -0700 (PDT) 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 Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2021 13:25:07 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/6] gcc-plugins/structleak: add makefile var for disabling structleak To: Kees Cook 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 List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Sep 17, 2021 at 8:48 AM Kees Cook 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 > > For a C-d-b, also include a S-o-b: > > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook > > 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!