From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mr Dash Four Subject: Re: [PATCH] iproute2: lib/utils.c bug fixes Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 17:16:07 +0100 Message-ID: <51683347.1000806@googlemail.com> References: <516771D5.3040607@googlemail.com> <20130411200656.42dfb8bb@nehalam.linuxnetplumber.net> <516810DD.80008@googlemail.com> <20130412090231.7d8e9c6c@nehalam.linuxnetplumber.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Stephen Hemminger Return-path: Received: from mail-wg0-f44.google.com ([74.125.82.44]:43296 "EHLO mail-wg0-f44.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751864Ab3DLQQU (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Apr 2013 12:16:20 -0400 Received: by mail-wg0-f44.google.com with SMTP id z11so2808406wgg.23 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2013 09:16:19 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20130412090231.7d8e9c6c@nehalam.linuxnetplumber.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Stephen Hemminger wrote: > On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 14:49:17 +0100 > Mr Dash Four wrote: > > >> Stephen Hemminger wrote: >> >>> On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 03:30:45 +0100 >>> Mr Dash Four wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> This patch fixes the following 3 bugs in get_u32/get_u64 functions: >>>> >>>> 1. On 32-bit systems, get_u32 could not detect an overflow. >>>> get_u32(&l, "4294967296", 10) always returned 4294967295 >>>> (ULONG_MAX on 32-bit systems). >>>> >>>> 2. get_u64(&ll, "4294967295", 10) was returning an error where >>>> it shouldn't have (4294967295 is perfectly legitimate value for >>>> unsigned long long). >>>> >>>> 3. get_u64 couldn't detect an overflow errors (arg > ULLONG_MAX) >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Mr Dash Four >>>> >>>> >>> I don't demand Developer Certificate of Origin on iproute2 patches. >>> But if you are going to include it then you must use your real name, >>> no pseudonyms. See kernel/Documentation/SubmittingPatches. >>> >>> >> 1. You may or may not be aware that this isn't my first-and-only >> contribution to the >> Linux/Netfilter/Security/Audit/kernel/any_other_Linux_development_project_you_care_to_mention >> tree in which I used my name above. >> 2. How do you know that Dash Four isn't my name and is a "pseudonym" (do >> you consider the name "Dotcom" not to be a real name too, simply because >> in your, quite narrow-minded, understanding of the world this name >> "looks a bit strange, therefore it must be a pseudonym")? >> 3. The above text you were kind enough to point me to, is with regards >> to kernel submissions. My patch does not alter the kernel tree in any >> way whatsoever (but even if it has, see 1. above). >> > > The issue is that "Signed-off-by" has a legal meaning as defined > in the kernel SubmittingPatches > > > > Developer's Certificate of Origin 1.1 > > By making a contribution to this project, I certify that: > > (a) The contribution was created in whole or in part by me and I > have the right to submit it under the open source license > indicated in the file; or > > (b) The contribution is based upon previous work that, to the best > of my knowledge, is covered under an appropriate open source > license and I have the right under that license to submit that > work with modifications, whether created in whole or in part > by me, under the same open source license (unless I am > permitted to submit under a different license), as indicated > in the file; or > > (c) The contribution was provided directly to me by some other > person who certified (a), (b) or (c) and I have not modified > it. > > (d) I understand and agree that this project and the contribution > are public and that a record of the contribution (including all > personal information I submit with it, including my sign-off) is > maintained indefinitely and may be redistributed consistent with > this project or the open source license(s) involved. > > then you just add a line saying > > Signed-off-by: Random J Developer > > using your real name (sorry, no pseudonyms or anonymous contributions.) > > > It was introduced during the SCO pre-trial paranoia phase to deal with > the possibility of somebody putting something into kernel, then claiming it > as proprietary. > > By putting on Signed-off-by: you are making a legal statement. > Either resubmit without the Signed-off-by, or give a real name. > I am well-aware of what you just posted, as indicated in my initial response you were kind enough to quote above. I would appreciate it if you could address the points (1-3) I've made in response to that if you disagree, or comment on the content of the actual submission if you don't, so we can all move on. Thank you.