linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] Documentation/process: Add text to indicate supporters should be mailed

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:   Fri, 30 Sep 2022 22:37:21 -0400
From:   "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
To:     "Bryan O'Donoghue" <bryan.odonoghue@...aro.org>
Cc:     Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@...il.com>, corbet@....net,
        konstantin@...uxfoundation.org, krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux@...mhuis.info
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] Documentation/process: Add text to indicate
 supporters should be mailed

On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 05:18:52PM +0100, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
> > So the root cause of your confusion was you couldn't figure out
> > the fact that "supporter" in the output of get_maintainver.pl means
> > "maintainer of a supported subsystem", wasn't it?
> > 
> > I guess all you need would be just a short notice along the lines of:
> > 
> >      "supporter" in the output from get_maintainer.pl means "maintainer
> >      of a supported subsystem".
> > 
> > No?
> 
> We discussed that a bit earlier.
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220928003006.230103-1-bryan.odonoghue@linaro.org/T/#u
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2022/9/28/1394
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2022/9/28/1511
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2022/9/29/188
> 
> I think its fair to say the consensus so far is to leave the
> get_maintainer.pl output as is.

FWIW, I actually think the output of get_maintainer.pl is pretty
broken in this regard.  (Then again, I've never thought all that
highly of get_maintainer.pl, *especially* because of the bogus git
fallback, but that's another story.)

Consider:

% ./scripts/get_maintainer.pl --file  drivers/acpi/power.c
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org> (supporter:ACPI)
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org> (reviewer:ACPI)
linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org (open list:ACPI)
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org (open list)

I'm sorry, but that's just *wrong*.  Rafael is the *maintainer* of the
ACPI subsystem, and the term "supporter" is rarely if ever used
anywhere in our docs.  As I said earlier, trying to treat S: field to
say anything about the entitles listed under the M: field of the
Maintainers file is a category error.

Consider: ACPI subsystem is is "supported".  From a user's
perspective, what are they supposed to take from that?  That the ACPI
subsystem is somehow better supported than say, the MM subsystem
(which is only "maintained"), or all of Linux networking, which is
also "maintained".  And so Rafel is a "supporter", but David Miller
and Andrew Morton are "maintainers", respectively. ?!?

I think the original rationale behind the S: field is to help people
understand, in particular for device drivers, how solid a particular
device driver might be.  Was it officially supported by the hardware
manufacturer?  Was it supported by a some random student who hacked
something together?  Was the still being actively maintained?  But
even then, just because a driver is "officially" supported by the
hardware manufacturer doesn't necessarily mean that it is any more
reliable, or high quality, than something which is being supported by
someone who supposedly isn't getting paid to support it.  (And there
are plenty of subsystems listed as "maintained" where the people
listed under M: are most certainly getting paid to work on it.)

       	     	    	 	   	   - Ted