Re: [PATCH] drivers/core: Replace lockdep_set_novalidate_class() with unique class keys

[Tetsuo Handa]

On 2023/02/09 11:26, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 09, 2023 at 09:22:39AM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
>> On 2023/02/09 0:07, Alan Stern wrote:
>>> I'm happy to have people test this patch, but I do not want anybody 
>>> think that it is ready to be merged into the kernel.
>>
>> People (and build/test bots) won't test changes that are not proposed as
>> a formal patch with Signed-off-by: tag. As far as I am aware, bot is not
>> testing plain diff.
> 
> People _do_ test changes without a Signed-off-by: tag.  This happens 
> with my patches all the time; I don't put Signed-off-by: on a patch 
> until I think it is ready to be merged.  If you search through the email 
> archives, you'll find examples where people deliberately put a 
> "Not-yet-signed-off-by:" tag on a suggested patch.

That's a cultural difference. I know there are developers who use
"Not-yet-signed-off-by:" tag. But I'm not subscribed to mailing lists
which you are subscribed to. I'm subscribed to linux-security-module, but
I feel that it is quite rare that developers post changes as plain diff
without Signed-off-by: tag, for people prefer to see formal patches than
plain diff. I can see that only David Howells was using Not-yet-signed-off-by:
tag (like https://marc.info/?l=linux-security-module&m=130455572927447 ).

But even with Not-yet-signed-off-by: tag, his patches are formal patches
with description rather than plain diff. Unlike networking subsystem where
patches sometimes get merged before people have time to review/test,
developers in my subscribed mailing lists tend to propose v2, v3, v4...
patches with "Signed-off-by:" tag instead of posting plain diff.

> Syzbot also tests patches without a Signed-off-by: tag.  Here's a recent 
> example:
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-usb/Y9wh8dGK6oHSjJQl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/

That's completely different. syzbot is designed to test plain diff via
explict "#syz test:" directive. If "#syz test:" directive is not included,
syzbot does not test your diff.

Do you know any bot which automatically does testing plain diff? I don't know
when bots (or automated systems) test changes, but my guess is that a formal
patch with "Signed-off-by:" tag serves as the directive for bots to test
changes. Maybe we want a directive (e.g. "Test-requested-by:" tag) which
encourages/asks bots (or automated systems) to test patches but does not
want patches to get merged into permanent git trees.

>> I can update the patch if lockdep developers prefer rename over add.
>> What I worry is that lockdep developers do not permit static_obj() being
>> used by non-lockdep code.
> 
> I worry about that too, and I hoped that Peter Z. would comment on it. 
> But if they don't want the function to be exported, they ought to be 
> able to suggest an alternative.

Then, at least we can start without "EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(lockdep_static_obj);"
line, for drivers/base/core.c cannot be built as a module.

Since there are already several locations which directly use e.g. _stext symbol,
we would simply duplicate static_obj() into drivers/base/core.c if Peter does
not want to make static_obj() visible to built-in code.



Anyway, despite being posted as a formal patch, it seems that nobody was
interested in manual testing. As far as I tried "#syz test" this patch against
https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=9ef743bba3a17c756174 , syzbot kernel
was able to boot. Therefore, I think it is OK to stay for a week whether
this patch causes too frequent crashes to continue using linux-next.git .

Please propose a formal patch to Peter with your "Signed-off-by:" tag...