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]

Message-ID: <20200923153941.GK28545@zn.tnic>
Date:   Wed, 23 Sep 2020 17:39:41 +0200
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:     Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
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, Sep 23, 2020 at 04:52:18PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> 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.

That is supposed to be explained in [] properly so that there's no
misreading of why that tag's there.

> The last thing we want is Sasha's bot to jump on patches adding new
> functionality just because it has a reported-by line.

It should jump on patches which have Fixes: tags. But Sasha's bot is
nuts regardless. :-)

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

So I don't mind having a Reported-by: tag with an explanation of what
it reported. We slap all kinds of tags so having some attribution for
the work the 0day bot does to catch such errors is reasonable. I presume
they track this way how "useful" it is, by counting the Reported-by's or
so, as they suggest one should add a Reported-by in their reports.

And without any attribution what the 0day bot reported, it might decide
not to report anything next time, I'd venture a guess.

And the same argument can be had for Suggested-by: tags: one could
decide not to add that tag and the person who's doing the suggesting
might decide not to suggest anymore.

So I think something like:

 [ Fix a build breakage in an earlier version. ]
Reported-by: 0day bot

is fine as long as it makes it perfectly clear what Reported-by tag
is for and as long as ts purpose for being present there is clear, I
don't see an issue...

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette