Re: Linux 5.18-rc1

From: Guenter Roeck
Date: Mon Apr 04 2022 - 17:26:54 EST

On 4/4/22 08:32, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Sun, Apr 3, 2022 at 9:23 PM Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Oops. Sorry, I thought it was big endian. No idea why. I'll update
subject and description and resend.

I see your updated patch, but for some reason 'b4' is unhappy about it, with

$ b4 am 20220404134338.3276991-1-linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx


✗ [PATCH v3] staging: r8188eu: Fix PPPoE tag insertion on little
endian systems

your DKIM looks fine on the messages I see, but now that I look at it
on the mailing list, I notice that your DKIM really is very wrong, and
has a lot of headers that a DKIM signature should *not* have.

Your DKIM signature includes header names that are very much for list
management, so by definition DKIM will fail for any email you send
through a mailing list. Headers like
:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe" etc.

The DKIM setup should protect the meaningful headers that matter to
the sender, not things that the mail system will validly add when it
passes through.

So the DKIM header list should be things like

Not things like "Sender" or mailing list things.

I tried to tell my provider, but to no avail. Until now I used gmail,
but gmail will disable that ability by end of this month, leaving me
in the dark. Lose-lose situation for me. Right now I don't have a
useful alternative that doesn't require me to change my e-mail
address completely (or setting up my own e-mail server which
is a pita).

Anyway, I was going to just commit it directly, but with the DKIM
verification failing, I was a bit less eager to. And then I noticed
that you used "be16_to_cpu()" - which is technically correct - which
doesn't match the other code in that file.

Another lose-lose situation. Larry tells me I should use
be16_to_cpu(), you tell me I should not.

Either case,
is a more complete solution, so you might want to pick that one.