linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] docs: process: submitting-patches: Clarify the Reported-by usage

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:   Mon, 31 Jan 2022 20:16:42 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>
Cc:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, kbuild-all@...ts.01.org,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Florian Eckert <fe@....tdt.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] docs: process: submitting-patches: Clarify the
 Reported-by usage

On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 05:47:32PM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 05:34:35PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 04:18:30PM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 01:44:20PM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> 
> > > > I think this misunderstands the problem that Andy is trying to fix.
> > > > 
> > > > The situation: I write a patch.  I post it for review.  A bot does
> > > > something and finds a bug (could be compile-error, could be boot
> > > > problem).  That bot sends a bug report with a suggestion to add
> > > > Reported-by:.  That suggestion is inappropriate because the bug never
> > > > made it upstream, so it looks like the bot reported the "problem"
> > > > that the patch "fixes".
> > > > 
> > > > It's not unique to "new feature" patches.  If I'm fixing a bug and
> > > > my fix also contains a bug spotted by a bot, adding Reported-by
> > > > makes it look like the bot spotted the original bug, rather than
> > > > spotting a bug in the fix.
> > > > 
> > > > The best thing to do in this case is nothing.  Do not credit the bot.
> > > > Maybe add a Checked-by:, but that would be a new trailer and I really
> > > > don't think we need a new kind of trailer to get wrong.
> > > 
> > > It seems like the only way to fix this is to fix the bots. Adding more
> > > documentation is unlikely to help in this case.
> > 
> > Links to the documentation at least may clarify the point in case of a
> > review.
> 
> Sure.
> 
> > > Can't we file a bug to whoever is running the bots (Intel?) and ask them
> > > to remove the suggestion to add a Reported-by when the bot is testing a
> > > patch (as opposed to mainline or even -next)?
> > 
> > The granularity here is not a repo. It's a code itself and in some cases
> > it might be easy to distinguish new feature from the code modifications,
> > but when code is already there and feature is just an extension of the
> > existing file(s), it's hard to tell. And it might be true or not.
> 
> Not sure I understand what you're saying here. Perhaps you and Matthew
> are talking about different things after all.

I'm talking about your suggestion to fix the bots. It's not easy.
The problem is the same as Matthew explained.

> But for Matthew's issue, the case where the bots are testing posted
> patches ("Thank you for the patch! Yet something to improve:) should be
> easy to fix by simply dropping or rephrasing the "kindly add following
> tag as appropriate" suggestion.

Yes, but this is not "fixing the bots", it falls into category "working around"
them, because even for a clear bug report the suggestion can be stronger.
And doing that properly without kinda AI not easy.

> When testing merged code, it may be harder to tell whether the branch in
> question can be rebased or not (and an incremental fix with a
> reported-by tag is warranted).

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko