On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 01:34:01PM +0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote: > Hi! > > On 6/21/22 13:16, Greg KH wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 08:12:12AM -0400, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 02:00:16PM +0200, Fabian Stelzer wrote: > > > > Konstantin Ryabitsev has done some work in this area especially for kernel > > > > development by using email headers: > > > > https://people.kernel.org/monsieuricon/end-to-end-patch-attestation-with-patatt-and-b4 > > > > https://github.com/mricon/patatt > > > > > > Greg refers specifically to patatt signatures. They aren't really specific to > > > kernel development at all -- they can be used for any patches sent via mail. > > > > > > b4 (the tool used by many maintainers to retrieve patches from lists) will > > > check patatt-style signatures (in addition to DKIM signatures) to help verify > > > that the patches come from trusted sources and aren't someone pretending to be > > > someone else. > > > > Yes, I was referring to patatt here, as linked by Konstantin's blog post > > above. It's part of the b4 tool (well, a git subproject in it), real > > link is at: > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/utils/patatt/patatt.git > > Thank you all for the info. > It works like charm (I still need to learn b4(1), but patatt(1) is enough > for me right now). :) They are independent, patatt I use when sending patches, b4 I use when accepting patches. If you never have to accept patches, and read the mailing lists using the normal way, no need to use b4. thanks, greg k-h
