[PATCH] iproute2: lib/utils.c bug fixes

[PATCH] iproute2: lib/utils.c bug fixes

[Mr Dash Four]

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 <mr.dash.four@googlemail.com>
---
  lib/utils.c |    8 ++++++--
  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/lib/utils.c b/lib/utils.c
index 5bcdbcf..aeee8f1 100644
--- a/lib/utils.c
+++ b/lib/utils.c
@@ -149,10 +149,12 @@ int get_u64(__u64 *val, const char *arg, int base)
  	unsigned long long res;
  	char *ptr;

+	errno = 0;
+
  	if (!arg || !*arg)
  		return -1;
  	res = strtoull(arg, &ptr, base);
-	if (!ptr || ptr == arg || *ptr || res == 0xFFFFFFFFULL)
+	if (!ptr || ptr == arg || *ptr || (res == ULLONG_MAX && errno == ERANGE))
   		return -1;
   	*val = res;
   	return 0;
@@ -163,10 +165,12 @@ int get_u32(__u32 *val, const char *arg, int base)
  	unsigned long res;
  	char *ptr;

+	errno = 0;
+
  	if (!arg || !*arg)
  		return -1;
  	res = strtoul(arg, &ptr, base);
-	if (!ptr || ptr == arg || *ptr || res > 0xFFFFFFFFUL)
+	if (!ptr || ptr == arg || *ptr || res > 0xFFFFFFFFUL || errno == ERANGE)
  		return -1;
  	*val = res;
  	return 0;

Re: [PATCH] iproute2: lib/utils.c bug fixes

[Stephen Hemminger]

On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 03:30:45 +0100
Mr Dash Four <mr.dash.four@googlemail.com> 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 <mr.dash.four@googlemail.com>

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.

Re: [PATCH] iproute2: lib/utils.c bug fixes

[Mr Dash Four]

Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 03:30:45 +0100
> Mr Dash Four <mr.dash.four@googlemail.com> 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 <mr.dash.four@googlemail.com>
>>     
>
> 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).

Re: [PATCH] iproute2: lib/utils.c bug fixes

[Eric Dumazet]

On Fri, 2013-04-12 at 14:49 +0100, Mr Dash Four wrote:

> 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")?

WOW, I can not believe this rant against Stephen.

Is question was polite, your answer is definitely not.

Is "Mr" part of your name ?

My name is "Eric Dumazet", not "Mr Eric Dumazet" or "Mr Sublime
President Eric Dumazet"

Re: [PATCH] iproute2: lib/utils.c bug fixes

[Mr Dash Four]

Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-04-12 at 14:49 +0100, Mr Dash Four wrote:
>
>   
>> 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")?
>>     
>
> WOW, I can not believe this rant against Stephen.
>   
It wasn't a rant at all, quite on the contrary (if it is perceived as 
such, my apologies, that was not the intention).

> Is question was polite, your answer is definitely not.
>   
The blanked assumption that I use a pseudonym, simply because "Dash Four 
looks a bit strange" wasn't very polite either.

> Is "Mr" part of your name ?
>   
It is as far as I am concerned (Mr = Mister, which is indicative of my 
gender).

> My name is "Eric Dumazet", not "Mr Eric Dumazet"
Right, so if I am unfamiliar with the common pool of French names 
(which, I presume, is where yours comes from), can I call you Miss Eric 
Dumazet then? The title (Mr) is included for those confused souls out 
there (*Mr* Hemminger included) who are not sure as to what my gender 
is, that's all.

>  or "Mr Sublime President Eric Dumazet"
>   
And you don't find the above response patronising to say the least?

Re: [PATCH] iproute2: lib/utils.c bug fixes

[Eric Dumazet]

On Fri, 2013-04-12 at 15:38 +0100, Mr Dash Four wrote:

> > Is "Mr" part of your name ?
> >   
> It is as far as I am concerned (Mr = Mister, which is indicative of my 
> gender).
> 

We don't care of genders or titles.

We do believe men and women can equally code and submit patches the
same. And of course some human beings are neither man or woman.

Re: [PATCH] iproute2: lib/utils.c bug fixes

[Mr Dash Four]

Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-04-12 at 15:38 +0100, Mr Dash Four wrote:
>
>   
>>> Is "Mr" part of your name ?
>>>   
>>>       
>> It is as far as I am concerned (Mr = Mister, which is indicative of my 
>> gender).
>>
>>     
>
> We don't care of genders or titles.
>
> We do believe men and women can equally code and submit patches the
> same. And of course some human beings are neither man or woman.
>   
Absolutely, and I haven't disputed that, nor did I state that "only men" 
or "only women" can submit patches to this list.

I am including my title as part of the name (like some others do - like 
"Dr", "Prof" etc) for the reasons I indicated in my previous reply. 
Besides, I used the word "indicative" in my response above, so I am not 
saying with 100% certainty what my gender or sexual belief/orientation 
is - one way or another.

Now that we cleared this little nugget, can we move along please as the 
netdev forum isn't the appropriate place to discuss genders, name titles 
or sexual orientation - something I had no intention of doing (apologies 
to all who had to put up with this little diversion), but I felt I was 
dragged into this by your good self and Mr Hemminger. Thank you.

Re: [PATCH] iproute2: lib/utils.c bug fixes

[Eric Dumazet]

On Fri, 2013-04-12 at 16:25 +0100, Mr Dash Four wrote:

> Now that we cleared this little nugget, can we move along please as the 
> netdev forum isn't the appropriate place to discuss genders, name titles 
> or sexual orientation - something I had no intention of doing (apologies 
> to all who had to put up with this little diversion), but I felt I was 
> dragged into this by your good self and Mr Hemminger. Thank you.

Next time you submit a patch, think about how you can avoid this useless
discussions by choosing an appropriate signature. (And no, I don't
suggest you change your name !)

And this is not a diversion, since I remember you had the same problems
in the past. You perfectly know your signature is not very good, and you
play with this. I can tell you its not funny.

Re: [PATCH] iproute2: lib/utils.c bug fixes

[Mr Dash Four]

Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-04-12 at 16:25 +0100, Mr Dash Four wrote:
>
>   
>> Now that we cleared this little nugget, can we move along please as the 
>> netdev forum isn't the appropriate place to discuss genders, name titles 
>> or sexual orientation - something I had no intention of doing (apologies 
>> to all who had to put up with this little diversion), but I felt I was 
>> dragged into this by your good self and Mr Hemminger. Thank you.
>>     
>
> Next time you submit a patch, think about how you can avoid this useless
> discussions by choosing an appropriate signature. (And no, I don't
> suggest you change your name !)
>   
Care to enlighten me what your definition of "appropriate signature" is 
exactly? I am expecting that your answer would include the appropriate 
guidelines used on this mailing list and *not* your personal opinion as, 
in this particular case, this is, or should be, irrelevant.

> And this is not a diversion, since I remember you had the same problems
> in the past.
Similar to above - care to point out (in terms of links to previous ML 
archives posts and so on) what "problems" did I, allegedly, have had in 
the past with patch submissions? Because, to my recollection, I did 
*not* have any such problems. If you can't point me to any such 
references, then I'd assume that you are simply on a smear trip with an 
agenda.

>  You perfectly know your signature is not very good, and you
> play with this. I can tell you its not funny.
>   
I don't "play" with my signature - I have been using it since I started 
contributing to open source projects and that signature never changed.

I would also like to know what do you find that it is "not very good" in 
my signature and what particular patch submission guidelines am I 
breaking with using it? Again, I am expecting that you will refer to the 
relevant guidelines for patch submissions approved on this list when 
forming your response and will extricate any personal bias or opinion.

Just to repeat again, so that it is clear - as far as my "signature" 
goes, I am not aware of any issues I have allegedly had in the past with 
patch submissions, so if you care to point out what these were, please 
do so. If not, kindly move on. Thank you.

Re: [PATCH] iproute2: lib/utils.c bug fixes

[Bjørn Mork]

Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, 2013-04-12 at 15:38 +0100, Mr Dash Four wrote:
>
>> > Is "Mr" part of your name ?
>> >   
>> It is as far as I am concerned (Mr = Mister, which is indicative of my 
>> gender).
>> 
>
> We don't care of genders or titles.
>
> We do believe men and women can equally code and submit patches the
> same. And of course some human beings are neither man or woman.

Actually, I don't think you even have to be human to submit patches.  It
is often an advantage, though.


Bjørn

Re: [PATCH] iproute2: lib/utils.c bug fixes

[Stephen Hemminger]

On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 14:49:17 +0100
Mr Dash Four <mr.dash.four@googlemail.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 03:30:45 +0100
> > Mr Dash Four <mr.dash.four@googlemail.com> 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 <mr.dash.four@googlemail.com>
> >>     
> >
> > 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

<quote>

       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 <random@developer.example.org>

using your real name (sorry, no pseudonyms or anonymous contributions.)
</quote>

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.

Re: [PATCH] iproute2: lib/utils.c bug fixes

[Mr Dash Four]

Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 14:49:17 +0100
> Mr Dash Four <mr.dash.four@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>   
>> Stephen Hemminger wrote:
>>     
>>> On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 03:30:45 +0100
>>> Mr Dash Four <mr.dash.four@googlemail.com> 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 <mr.dash.four@googlemail.com>
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>> 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
>
> <quote>
>
>        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 <random@developer.example.org>
>
> using your real name (sorry, no pseudonyms or anonymous contributions.)
> </quote>
>
> 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.

Re: [PATCH] iproute2: lib/utils.c bug fixes

[David Miller]

The self-rightousness with which people operating under pseudonyms or
names that do not meet the requirements of the developers certificate
of origin react when they are confronted directly about this issue I
find truly appalling.

It's pretty pointless to wet yourself in public over this issue rather
than just comply with our requirements if you want to submit changes
that actually get applied.

But if you don't want to play along, that's fine, because if the issue
is important enough there's a thousand or so other developers right
behind you willing to fix or implement it too.

We have enough developer resources that people behaving in an
anti-social manner about issues like this simply don't matter.

I know what you're doing, you're just trying to make a point, but at
the expense of everyone else's time.  That makes you a troll at best,
and an asshole at worst.

Thanks.

Re: [PATCH] iproute2: lib/utils.c bug fixes

[Mr Dash Four]

David Miller wrote:
> The self-rightousness with which people operating under pseudonyms or
> names that do not meet the requirements of the developers certificate
> of origin react when they are confronted directly about this issue I
> find truly appalling.
>   
I assume this was aimed at me, in which case I'll ask again - on what 
basis you or Stephen have determined that I do not comply with these 
terms (this is a genuine question, not a wind up - just in case you or 
anybody else start making assumptions!)?

> It's pretty pointless to wet yourself in public over this issue rather
> than just comply with our requirements if you want to submit changes
> that actually get applied.
>   
I am not "wetting myself" over anything. Again though, where (or in what 
part of my submission) do you think that I have not complied with these 
requirements?

> But if you don't want to play along, that's fine, because if the issue
> is important enough there's a thousand or so other developers right
> behind you willing to fix or implement it too.
>
> We have enough developer resources that people behaving in an
> anti-social manner about issues like this simply don't matter.
>
> I know what you're doing, you're just trying to make a point, but at
> the expense of everyone else's time.  That makes you a troll at best,
> and an asshole at worst.
>   
I find the above comments uncalled for at best, particularly coming from 
someone in your position. "troll", "asshole"?

Re: [PATCH] iproute2: lib/utils.c bug fixes

[David Miller]

From: Mr Dash Four <mr.dash.four@googlemail.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 18:58:40 +0100

> I am not "wetting myself" over anything. Again though, where (or in
> what part of my submission) do you think that I have not complied with
> these requirements?

I'm not falling into this troll trap, sorry.  I am under no obligation
whatsoever to answer the questions you specifically choose in order to
steer the conversation in the direction that you want it to go.

You are wasting everyone's time with this, your patch could have been
re-implemented several times over with the resources that have been
devoured into this thread.

Re: [PATCH] iproute2: lib/utils.c bug fixes

[Hannes Frederic Sowa]

On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 06:58:40PM +0100, Mr Dash Four wrote:
> David Miller wrote:
> >The self-rightousness with which people operating under pseudonyms or
> >names that do not meet the requirements of the developers certificate
> >of origin react when they are confronted directly about this issue I
> >find truly appalling.
> >  
> I assume this was aimed at me, in which case I'll ask again - on what 
> basis you or Stephen have determined that I do not comply with these 
> terms (this is a genuine question, not a wind up - just in case you or 
> anybody else start making assumptions!)?

Please don't play a cat and mouse game with the folks around here. Is your
submission signed off with your *real* name? This is a simple requirement for
patch submissions. Why do you let the people reviewing and perhaps committing
your patch guess? Just clarify it in one sentence. If it is not your real name
it does violate the policy. It is that simple.

Thanks,

  Hannes

Re: [PATCH] iproute2: lib/utils.c bug fixes

[Mr Dash Four]

Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 06:58:40PM +0100, Mr Dash Four wrote:
>   
>> David Miller wrote:
>>     
>>> The self-rightousness with which people operating under pseudonyms or
>>> names that do not meet the requirements of the developers certificate
>>> of origin react when they are confronted directly about this issue I
>>> find truly appalling.
>>>  
>>>       
>> I assume this was aimed at me, in which case I'll ask again - on what 
>> basis you or Stephen have determined that I do not comply with these 
>> terms (this is a genuine question, not a wind up - just in case you or 
>> anybody else start making assumptions!)?
>>     
>
> Please don't play a cat and mouse game with the folks around here. Is your
> submission signed off with your *real* name?
*Yes* - I thought that was pretty obvious.

Stephen determined that for whatever reason the name appearing in the 
Signed-By tag "is a bit strange", so it must either be made up or a 
pseudonym and I took issue with this.

>  This is a simple requirement for patch submissions.
Which is fair enough, I suppose.

> Why do you let the people reviewing and perhaps committing
> your patch guess? Just clarify it in one sentence.
I am not sure I understand that question, but my patch submission is 
simply to correct 3 bugs in the current iproute2 tree - there is no 
other (ulterior) motive behind it. I am letting people reviewing (or 
committing) that patch as they are the (current/rightful) maintainers of 
this project (iproute2). This (the reason for issuing the patch and the 
subsequent request to review it) was made, I think pretty clear, in the 
patch submission heading.

> If it is not your real name it does violate the policy. It is that simple.
>   
I was perfectly aware of that before making that submission - as I 
already pointed out in one of my previous posts, this isn't my first 
submission (in the kernel tree as well as in other open-source projects) 
and I hope it won't be the last.

Re: [PATCH] iproute2: lib/utils.c bug fixes

[Hannes Frederic Sowa]

On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 07:36:38PM +0100, Mr Dash Four wrote:
> Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
> >Please don't play a cat and mouse game with the folks around here. Is your
> >submission signed off with your *real* name?
> *Yes* - I thought that was pretty obvious.
> 
> Stephen determined that for whatever reason the name appearing in the 
> Signed-By tag "is a bit strange", so it must either be made up or a 
> pseudonym and I took issue with this.
> 
> > This is a simple requirement for patch submissions.
> Which is fair enough, I suppose.
> 
> >Why do you let the people reviewing and perhaps committing
> >your patch guess? Just clarify it in one sentence.
> I am not sure I understand that question, but my patch submission is 
> simply to correct 3 bugs in the current iproute2 tree - there is no 
> other (ulterior) motive behind it. I am letting people reviewing (or 
> committing) that patch as they are the (current/rightful) maintainers of 
> this project (iproute2). This (the reason for issuing the patch and the 
> subsequent request to review it) was made, I think pretty clear, in the 
> patch submission heading.

These were rhetoric questions. After your (in my opionion harsh) answer to
Stephen I had doubts, too. Especially your first argument to Stephen's
mail (that you already submitted changes with this signature) was void (or
should have been the second or third argument). IMHO this inflamed the
situation.

> >If it is not your real name it does violate the policy. It is that simple.
> >  
> I was perfectly aware of that before making that submission - as I 
> already pointed out in one of my previous posts, this isn't my first 
> submission (in the kernel tree as well as in other open-source projects) 
> and I hope it won't be the last.

I hope so. ;)

I think I clarified up my mail and will leave this discussion now, too.

Thanks,

  Hannes