linux-kernel - Re: RFC: reviewer's statement of oversight

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: <200710082216.28227.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date:	Mon, 8 Oct 2007 22:16:26 +0200
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To:	"Scott Preece" <sepreece@...il.com>
Cc:	"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
	"Stefan Richter" <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>,
	"Randy Dunlap" <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>,
	"Jeremy Fitzhardinge" <jeremy@...p.org>,
	"Jan Engelhardt" <jengelh@...putergmbh.de>,
	"Sam Ravnborg" <sam@...nborg.org>,
	"Jonathan Corbet" <corbet@....net>,
	"Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Pekka Enberg" <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
Subject: Re: RFC: reviewer's statement of oversight

On Monday, 8 October 2007 21:26, Scott Preece wrote:
> On 10/8/07, J. Bruce Fields <bfields@...ldses.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 08:34:47PM +0200, Stefan Richter wrote:
> ...
> > > So, putting a Tested-by into the changelog is only useful if the
> > > necessary testing is rather simple (i.e. "fixed the bug which I was
> > > always able to reproduce before") or if the tester is known to have
> > > performed rigorous and sufficiently broad tests.
> >
> > Well, you can still include those test-method details in the body of the
> > message in addition to adding the "Tested-by:".
> >
> > Does "Tested-by" just mean they ran some relevant test on the final
> > version of the patch?  The really hard part is often the initial work
> > required to find a good reproduceable test case, capture the right error
> > report, or bisect to the right commit.  I think that also counts as
> > "testing".  And it'd be nice to have a tag for those sorts of
> > contributions, partly just as another way to ackowledge them.
> ---
> 
> Tested-by should, at the very least, have a description of the test
> environment in the body (suggesting that the change compiled and ran
> in that environment). Preferably it should also have a description of
> the test or test suite run and whether that test failed on an
> unpatched system.

Tested-by: is sort of trivial for a fix patch, for example, if a bug reporter
confirms that the proposed patch actually fixes the issue.  IMHO it wouldn't
be practical to complicate that.

Greetings,
Rafael
-
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/