linux-kernel - Re: "Reporting issues" document feedback

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: <3x-mW2Aa7Iz_sCWB1nxpPelpI18fDYosCWTq0_3mkcpnkNC6-HTsmIZ9eCEqcSKzXvt7-F25btwz38vkxAQBRLRVsgUqxUZlU9a-ZR_XhMY=@protonmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 14 Apr 2021 16:44:43 +0000
From:   w4v3 <vv4v3@...tonmail.com>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc:     Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@...mhuis.info>,
        "corbet@....net" <corbet@....net>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: "Reporting issues" document feedback

Alright, thanks for clarifying!


Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Wednesday, April 14, 2021 3:42 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@...nel.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 3:22 PM w4v3 vv4v3@...tonmail.com wrote:
>
> > Hi Thorsten,
> > Thanks for the quick and illuminating response :)
> >
> > > Links to your bug report and the thread on the mailing list would have
> > > helped here to understand better what's going on, but whatever, they are
> > > not that important.
> >
> > Here you go: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=212643
> > https://marc.info/?l=linux-acpi&m=161824910030600&w=2
> >
> > > But it should, otherwise the subsystem should remove the line starting
> > > with B: ("bugs:" in the webview).
> > > Rafael might be able to clarify things.
> >
> > > But afais it's appropriate there is a B: line: just a few weeks ago I
> > > took a quick look at bugzilla and ACPI bugs in particular, and back then
> > > most of the bug reports there got handled by the maintainers. That's why
> > > I assume you were just unlucky and your report fall through the cracks
> > > (but obviously I might be wrong here). And maybe your report even did
> > > help: the developer that fixed the issue might have seen both the bug
> > > entry and the mailed report, but simply forget to close the former.
> >
> > Good to know. It does seem like many recent ACPI bug reports on bugzilla
> > have been processed by maintainers. Maybe it is the ACPI-subcomponent I
> > chose for the bug: in Config-Tables, only two other bugs were submitted
> > and they did not attract comments. Anyways, I understand now that it's
> > not an issue with the document so thanks for forwarding it to Rafael.
>
> As a rule, ACPI bugs submitted through the BZ are processed by the
> ACPI team (not necessarily by me in person, though), but the response
> time may vary, so it's better to report urgent issues by sending
> e-mail to linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org.
>
> Definitely issues where table dumps or similar are requested are best
> handled in the BZ, so reporters can be asked to create a BZ entry for
> a bug reported by e-mail anyway.
>
> If you are interested in the history (ie. what issues were reported in
> the past), you need to look at both the BZ and the ml record.
>
> HTH