Messages in this thread | | | From | Linus Torvalds <> | Date | Mon, 4 Apr 2022 08:32:16 -0700 | Subject | Re: Linux 5.18-rc1 |
| |
On Sun, Apr 3, 2022 at 9:23 PM Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> 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@roeck-us.net
causing
✗ [PATCH v3] staging: r8188eu: Fix PPPoE tag insertion on little endian systems --- ✗ BADSIG: DKIM/roeck-us.net
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-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :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 ":To:From:Cc:Message-Id:Date:Subject:"
Not things like "Sender" or mailing list things.
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.
That driver uses the traditional "htons()" to convert to network byte order. And yes, our naming with "be16_to_cpu()" etc is much more legible and does do the reverse, but it looks very odd to mix the two naming conventions. Either use one or the other, but not a mix.
Linus
| |