linux-kernel - Re: [RESEND][PATCH] bug: Exclude non-BUG/WARN exceptions from report

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <87a7vn9ii0.fsf@purkki.adurom.net>
Date:   Mon, 05 Mar 2018 07:52:23 +0200
From:   Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Richard Weinberger <richard.weinberger@...il.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RESEND][PATCH] bug: Exclude non-BUG/WARN exceptions from report_bug()

Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> writes:

> On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 12:22 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
>>
>> My question would be, will the existing automated systems that parse
>> the "PATCH" subject deal with a non-whitespaced suffix like this?
>
> Hmm. Maybe just space them out. That's what networking already does,
> ie you'll see things like
>
>     [PATCH net-next v3 0/5] patch description here
>
>     [PATCH net] some-patch-description
>
> in subject lines. Maybe we can just encourage that format in general.
>
> And yes, I agree, for when the targets are obvious, this clearly isn't
> needed. And often they are.
>
> So this would still likely be the exception rather than the rule, but
> it would be a lot more obvious than hiding a one-liner commentary deep
> in the middle of the email.

At least for me (as the wireless-drivers maintainer) this would be a
major improvement as it's not always clear to which to tree a patch
should be applied and it would save unnecessary ping pong when I need to
ask which tree is the patch going to. I think few times I have even
accidentally applied a patch which Dave has already applied to the net tree
because of the target tree was not clearly marked.

So at least I would very much welcome having this documented somewhere
in Documentation so that I can start convincing people to use it more :)

-- 
Kalle Valo