linux-kernel - Re: Linux 2.6.21

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 linux-cve-announce 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]

Message-ID: <20070429191432.GA31445@one.firstfloor.org>
Date:	Sun, 29 Apr 2007 21:14:32 +0200
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de>,
	Diego Calleja <diegocg@...il.com>,
	Chuck Ebbert <cebbert@...hat.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.21

On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 08:50:55PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Sunday, 29 April 2007 19:37, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > My personal experience with bugzilla is that it's very unfriendly to
> > > reporters.  IMHO it's suitable for tracking unresolved problems along with
> > > debug patches, system information etc., but not for _reporting_ new ones.
> > 
> > What did you find unfriendly? 
> 
> - You are required to select a category and 'component' for your report, which
> often is difficult (especially if you're not a kernel expert)

Usually there is other and then someone else figures it out.

> - You need to have a bugzilla account (or to create one, if you don't)
> - If you want to add an address to the CC list, it must be known to bugzilla
> and there's no (obvious) way to check which addresses are known (bugzilla
> rejects the report if there's a 'wrong' email address in the list)  [IMO this is
> really really broken.]

The Novell bugzilla actually has that fixed. You have a search email button
to look up addresses.  Perhaps that feature will be ported someday into
the kernel.org one (I would like to have it too) 

> - You are asked to provide many details that need not be relevant and casual
> reporters don't know that they can skip this part
> - Attaching files is tedious and referring to attachments unintuitive

Anyways that are mostly all detail (except the registration requirement) that
could be probably all easily fixed.

> And I think they are two _totally_ conceptually different things.  You report
> a bug to let somebody know that there's a problem and this doesn't necessarily

The problem is we need a way to route those reports to the right people.
Routing it to a single person or broadcasting it just doesn't scale.
And the best way I know of is to use some database that keeps track of the state.

That is what bugzilla is essentially.

> For this reason there should be a simple means of filing initial bug reports
> with someone to look at them and forward them to appropriate people who will
> decide if the problem needs to be tracked.  If they do, it's time to use
> bugzilla.  Not earlier.

The only sane way to do that would be to save them somewhere and keep
a list and then let a group of people process them.

Hmm, wait... sounds like bugzilla, doesn't it?

> You are right, email is not suitable for tracking bugs.  Still, it works quite
> well as a means of sending initial reports.

I disagree. It works small scale but does not really scale well.

-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/