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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 15 Apr 2021 12:32:29 +0200
From:   Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@...mhuis.info>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        w4v3 <vv4v3@...tonmail.com>
Cc:     "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

On 14.04.21 15:42, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 3:22 PM w4v3 <vv4v3@...tonmail.com> wrote:
>>> 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

BTW: thx!

>>> 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.

Rafael, thx for clarifying. And what you wrote is likely the case for
subsystems as well, so I submitted a patch to mentioned that in
reporting-issues.rst:

https://lore.kernel.org/linux-doc/dd13f10c30e79e550215e53a8103406daec4e593.1618482489.git.linux@leemhuis.info/

Thx everyone! Ciao, Thorsten