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  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:	Fri, 11 May 2007 22:35:00 +0100
From:	Alan Cox <>
To:	Adrian Bunk <>
Cc:	"John Anthony Kazos Jr." <>,
	Rene Herman <>,
	Rusty Russell <>,,,,,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH] module_author: don't advice putting in an email address

> This still wouldn't solve the following problems:
> - I doubt it will be kept up to date for all > 2800 modules in the kernel
> - the 3 year old kernel of your distribution would contain 3 year old
>   maintainership information
> - maintainers sometimes disappear

Maintainers sometimes DON'T disappear ....
> The default for "bug and defect reports" should be for all modules (as 
> well as for non-modular code) from kernels either 
> linux-kernel or the kernel Bugzilla. [1]

If users put it in the kernel bugzilla its gets lost because most of the
bugzilla isn't set up to route bugs to maintainers. In the unlikely event
it arrives there or it gets posted to linux-kernel the only reply is
"report it to your distributor"

> For distribution kernels (which are what most users are using), the
> default for "bug and defect reports" should be the distribution support.

I'd prefer not. I get reports from people about drivers that got "lost"
by vendors, regularly. Nor am I pointing fingers at specific vendors here,
last month I sorted out a two year old "lost in Red Hat Bugzilla" kernel
bug for example.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists