On 26.07.23 10:07, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> (CC'ing Kai and Thorsten who have added the check to checkpatch)
>
> On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 08:24:50AM +0200, Ricardo Ribalda wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 at 23:34, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 05:46:54PM +0000, Ricardo Ribalda wrote:
>>>> If the index provided by the user is bigger than the mask size, we might do an
>>>> out of bound read.
>>>>
>>>> CC: stable@xxxxxxxxxx
>>>> Fixes: 40140eda661e ("media: uvcvideo: Implement mask for V4L2_CTRL_TYPE_MENU")
>>>> Reported-by: Zubin Mithra <zsm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> checkpatch now requests a Reported-by tag to be immediately followed by
>>> a Closes
Not that it matters, the changes I performed only required a Link: tag,
which is how things should have been done for many years already. It
later became Closes: due to patches from Matthieu. But whatever. :-D
>>> tag that contains the URL to the report. Could you please
>>> provide that ?
>> I saw that, but the URL is kind of private:
>> Closes: http://issuetracker.google.com/issues/289975230
> Ah :-S I wonder if we should drop the Reported-by tag then ?
That's what I do, unless the reporter granted his permission. To quote
Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst : ```Be careful in the addition of
tags to your patches, as only Cc: is appropriate for addition without
the explicit permission of the person named; using Reported-by: is fine
most of the time as well, but ask for permission if the bug was reported
in private.```
I heard of on instance where a GDPR complaint was filed due to a
Reported-by: tag. So maybe that part should be even revisited reg. the
Cc: aspect. :-/
Ciao, Thorsten
