Re: [OE-core] [scarthgap][PATCH] dropbear: Disable DSS correctly

["Yoann Congal" <yoann.congal@smile.fr>]

On Thu Jul 9, 2026 at 9:33 PM CEST, Alex Kiernan wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 9, 2026 at 8:07 PM Mike Crowe via lists.openembedded.org
> <mac=mcrowe.com@lists.openembedded.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Yoann,
>>
>> On Tuesday 07 July 2026 at 10:54:38 +0200, Yoann Congal wrote:
>> > On Mon Jun 29, 2026 at 6:50 PM CEST, Mike Crowe via lists.openembedded.org wrote:
>> > > From: Mike Crowe <mac@mcrowe.com>
>> > >
>> > > Take upstream patch that stops sysoptions.h unconditionally turning
>> > > DROPBEAR_DSS back on even when it has been disabled (which is the
>> > > default).
>> > >
>> > > Signed-off-by: Mike Crowe <mac@mcrowe.com>
>> > > ---
>> > >  ...PBEAR_DSS-is-only-forced-for-fuzzing.patch | 29 +++++++++++++++++++
>> > >  .../recipes-core/dropbear/dropbear_2022.83.bb |  1 +
>> > >  2 files changed, 30 insertions(+)
>> > >  create mode 100644 meta/recipes-core/dropbear/dropbear/0001-Fix-so-DROPBEAR_DSS-is-only-forced-for-fuzzing.patch
>> > >
>> > > diff --git a/meta/recipes-core/dropbear/dropbear/0001-Fix-so-DROPBEAR_DSS-is-only-forced-for-fuzzing.patch b/meta/recipes-core/dropbear/dropbear/0001-Fix-so-DROPBEAR_DSS-is-only-forced-for-fuzzing.patch
>> > > new file mode 100644
>> > > index 0000000000..b9705a2bbb
>> > > --- /dev/null
>> > > +++ b/meta/recipes-core/dropbear/dropbear/0001-Fix-so-DROPBEAR_DSS-is-only-forced-for-fuzzing.patch
>> > > @@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
>> > > +From c7dfaebd5f6a4cde4198f4d2a7baabaa1f632274 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> > > +From: Matt Johnston <matt@ucc.asn.au>
>> > > +Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2022 22:34:11 +0800
>> > > +Subject: [PATCH] Fix so DROPBEAR_DSS is only forced for fuzzing
>> > > +
>> > > +Regression from 787391ea3b5af2acf5e3c83372510f0c79477ad7,
>> > > +was missing fuzzing conditional
>> > > +
>> > > +Upstream-Status: Backport [https://github.com/mkj/dropbear/commit/c043efb47c3173072fa636ca0da0d19875d4511f]
>> >
>> > This patch is missing your signed-off-by.
>>
>> Well, it's not my patch. :)
>>
>> I wasn't aware that I was expected to add one to the patch itself for a
>> backport.
>>
>> https://docs.yoctoproject.org/scarthgap/contributor-guide/recipe-style-guide.html
>> doesn't seem to say that a SoB should be added to the patch. It does say:
>>
>> | Of course, if another person later takes care of submitting this patch
>> | upstream, the status should be changed to Submitted [where], and an
>> | additional Signed-off-by: line should be added to the patch by the person
>> | claiming responsibility for upstreaming.
>>
>> which sort of implies that a SoB should be added for original patches that
>> are suitable for upstreaming but this patch is a backport which originated
>> upstream (without a SoB) which isn't the same thing.
>>
>> Adding a SoB to an unmodified upstream backport patch feels like
>> appropriation on my part, but I can do so if that's the policy.
>>
>
> You're certifying that the patch you're submitting is appropriately
> licensed; it says nothing about who authored it.

I agree with Alex: As the one requesting the backport, you are the one
signing-off on this particular operation. The original author had
nothing to do with that.

I created a bug to request clarification in the doc on this point:
16356 – Clarify trailers usage (Signed-off-by, ...) in imported patches
https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16356

Regards,
-- 
Yoann Congal
Smile ECS