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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <0b0df0d0-b1fb-e6e9-8368-bbf1b59f887d@leemhuis.info>
Date:   Fri, 9 Apr 2021 13:54:45 +0200
From:   Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@...mhuis.info>
To:     Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        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

On 08.04.21 19:31, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> 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; [...]

Yeah, I might have done a little too far and should have written it a
bit more relaxed (like "if you want to help, add a tag like this...").
Looking back at it I got a bit bold and went farther then initially
planned due to the ```Make it clear that the list is only for
regressions that people can describe some way, rather than some general
"I have issues with xyz".``` from Linus here:
https://lore.kernel.org/ksummit/CAHk-=wgiYqqLzsb9-UpfH+=ktk7ra-2fOsdc_ZJ7WF47wS73CA@mail.gmail.com/

> [...]
> 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.

Yeah, but let's wait how things evolve before adding this then. :-D

FWIW, just sent v2 with the problematic bits dropped and the MAINTAINERS
entry Greg outlined.

Ciao, Thorsten