linux-kernel - Re: Planned changes for bugzilla.kernel.org to reduce the "Bugzilla blues"

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: <20221003150708.5f5a409b@gandalf.local.home>
Date:   Mon, 3 Oct 2022 15:07:08 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc:     "Artem S. Tashkinov" <aros@....com>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
        Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@...mhuis.info>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Konstantin Ryabitsev <konstantin@...uxfoundation.org>,
        workflows@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "regressions@...ts.linux.dev" <regressions@...ts.linux.dev>,
        ksummit@...ts.linux.dev,
        Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@....com>
Subject: Re: Planned changes for bugzilla.kernel.org to reduce the "Bugzilla
 blues"

On Mon, 3 Oct 2022 19:24:07 +0100
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:

> Way more than 800, IME.  And I'm still subscribed to it, even though
> reading through the damn thing isn't physically possible.  About 1 or 2
> percents gets past the "delete unopened" pass...

I keep the last 10 weeks in my folder (and archive the rest.) That's 70
days worth, and I have 78,109 emails currently in that folder. OK, it's
been a while since I last took the average. It appears to be 1114 emails
per day now. I blame the extra 300 emails a day being the stable updates :-D

> 
> Speaking of private mail... there's one case when it's warranted -
> a bug that looks like a sufficiently nasty security hole in something that
> would be sufficiently widely deployed.  Preferably - with something along
> the lines of "off-list due to potential security impact".
> 
> Still a matter of taste - security@ is an option for those...

I was about to say "then include the security@ mailing list". ;-)

It's still not a private one. But for those that do not know about that
mailing list, yeah, private is fine. But that's not really the focus of
this discussion.

-- Steve