lists.openwall.net   lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Thu, 24 Feb 2022 11:10:53 +0100
From:   Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@...mhuis.info>
To:     Alexander Dahl <ada@...rsis.com>
Cc:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Stefano Zacchiroli <zack@...ilon.cc>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Laura Abbott <labbott@...nel.org>,
        Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...ia.fr>,
        Wenwen Wang <wenwen@...uga.edu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation/process: Add Researcher Guidelines

On 24.02.22 10:56, Alexander Dahl wrote:
> Hello Thorsten,
> 
> Am Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 09:19:24AM +0100 schrieb Thorsten Leemhuis:
>> On 24.02.22 01:14, Kees Cook wrote:
>>> +If you are a first time contributor it is recommended that the patch
>>> +itself be vetted by others privately before being posted to public lists.
>>> +(This is required if you have been explicitly told your patches need
>>> +more careful internal review.) These people are expected to have their
>>> +"Reviewed-by" tag included in the resulting patch. Finding another
>>> +developer familiar with Linux contribution, especially within your own
>>> +organization, and having them help with reviews before sending them to
>>> +the public mailing lists tends to significantly improve the quality of the
>>> +resulting patches, and there by reduces the burden on other developers.
>>
>> I like the section, but I wonder why it's needed here. Is there anything
>> specific to patches produced from research in it there I missed when
>> reading it? If not: Wouldn't it be better to include that section as a
>> TLDR in Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst and point there
>> instead? We already have at least two places describing how to submit
>> patches, creating yet another one (even if it's just in such a brief
>> version) somehow feels slightly wrong to me.
>>
>> OTOH I fully understand that having things in one place has it's
>> benefits. If that's wanted, why not put that text as TLDR in
>> submitting-patches.rst and maintain a copy here? Sure, keeping things in
>> sync has downsides, but I'd say it's the lesser evil. A copy could also
>> be avoided by briefly mentioning some of the important bits found in
>> another document; that's the approach I took in my patches regarding
>> regressions. To quote:
> 
> Without further opinion on the topic or content itself: 
> If there's need to have "copied" parts of the documentation available
> in different places, why not put that to a separate file and include
> it in all places which need it?  [...]

Yeah, I already wondered if that's possible, but never actually
investigated, as I assume the "separate file" aspect you mentioned is a
show-stopper: it makes reading hard for everyone that looks at the rst
files directly -- and that's something we afaics want to support.

Ciao, Thorsten

Powered by blists - more mailing lists