linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v1 2/2] docs: reporting-issues: make everyone CC the regressions list

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:   Thu, 08 Apr 2021 11:31:14 -0600
From:   Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
To:     Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@...mhuis.info>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 2/2] docs: reporting-issues: make everyone CC the
 regressions list

Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@...mhuis.info> writes:

> +In case you performed a successful bisection, use the title of the change that
> +introduced the regression as the second part of your subject. Make the report
> +also mention the commit id of the culprit. For tracking purposes, add a line
> +like the following that contains both pieces of information, but with the
> +commit id shortened to 12 characters::
> +
> +    #regzb introduced: 94a632d91ad1 ("usc: xhbi-foo: check bar_params earlier")
> +
> +In case of an unsuccessful bisection, make your report mention the latest tested
> +version that's working fine (say 5.7) and the oldest where the issue occurs (say
> +5.8-rc1). For tracking purposes add a line expressing it like this::
> +
> +    #regzb introduced: v5.7..v5.8-rc1

I kind of share Greg's concern that people aren't going to want to do
this; it could even be seen as an impediment to reporting problems in
general.  If you *really* want random users to input this sort of
information, you may well end up creating some sort of web page to step
them through it.

Also, though, as I understand it the system that will interpret these
lines does not yet exist.  Experience tells me that, as this system
comes into existence, you will have a good chance of deciding that you
want the syntax to look different anyway.  So I would personally hold
off on telling people to include directives like this until you have
something that works with them.

But that's just me... if this is the way it's going to work then the
docs should of course reflect that.

Thanks,

jon