linux-kernel - Quilt vs gmail (Was: [PATCH 0/3] sched/swait: Convert to full exclusive mode)

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: <20180612171420.GU12217@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Tue, 12 Jun 2018 19:14:20 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
        Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.de>,
        Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@...hat.com>
Subject: Quilt vs gmail (Was: [PATCH 0/3] sched/swait: Convert to full
 exclusive mode)

On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 09:47:34AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> I do note how quilt emails are really hard to read, because that:
> 
>     Content-Disposition: inline
> 
> makes gmail think it's flowed.
> 
> Which works horribly badly for patches, surprise surprise.
> 
> So I really wish quilt wouldn't do that. It does smell like a gmail
> bug, but at the same time, why would you use "Content-Disposition:
> inline" when you don't have an actual multi-part email? So I do blame
> quilt too for sending nonsensical headers.
> 
> (Yes, yes, I see the "It is permissible to use Content-Disposition on
> the main body" in the RFC. But the RFC also makes it clear that it
> actually matters for how things are presented, so saying "ok, I'll do
> flowed" seems equally insane and equally technically RFC-compliant)

Quilt people, anything that can be done about that?