linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4] cper, apei, mce: Pass x86 CPER through the MCA handling chain

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]

Date:   Wed, 23 Sep 2020 16:52:18 +0200
From:   Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:     Punit Agrawal <punit1.agrawal@...hiba.co.jp>,
        Smita Koralahalli <Smita.KoralahalliChannabasappa@....com>,
        X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-edac@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-efi <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
        ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        devel@...ica.org, Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
        Yazen Ghannam <yazen.ghannam@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] cper, apei, mce: Pass x86 CPER through the MCA
 handling chain

On Wed, 23 Sep 2020 at 16:05, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> wrote:
>
> Smita,
>
> pls sync the time of the box where you create the patch:
>
>  Date: Fri,  4 Sep 2020 09:04:44 -0500
>
> but your mail headers have:
>
>  Received: from ... with mapi id 15.20.3370.019; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 14:49:12 +0000
>                                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 07:07:17PM +0900, Punit Agrawal wrote:
> > I know Boris asked you to add the reason for the Reported-by, but
> > usually we don't track version differences in the committed patch.
> >
> > Boris, can you confirm if you want the Reported-by to be retained?
>
> How else would you explain what the Reported-by: tag is for on a patch
> which adds a feature?
>

I think the question is why we are retaining this Reported-by header
to begin with. Even though the early feedback is appreciated,
crediting the bot for eternity for a version of the patch that never
got merged seems a bit excessive. Also, it may suggest that the bot
was involved in reporting an issue that the patch aims to fix but that
is not the case. The last thing we want is Sasha's bot to jump on
patches adding new functionality just because it has a reported-by
line.

So I suggest dropping the Reported-by credit as well as the [] context
regarding v1