linux-kernel - Re: AUTOSEL process

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: <Y/8NWuHX0Sff+DhY@sol.localdomain>
Date:   Wed, 1 Mar 2023 00:31:22 -0800
From:   Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
To:     Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
Cc:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Slade Watkins <srw@...dewatkins.net>,
        Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>,
        Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
        viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: AUTOSEL process

On Wed, Mar 01, 2023 at 08:40:03AM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> But it's going into a dead end. You are the one saying that changes
> are easy, suggesting to use get_maintainers.pl, so easy that you can't
> try to adapt them in existing stuff. Even without modifying existing
> scripts, if you are really interested by such features, why not at least
> try to run your idea over a whole series, figure how long it takes, how
> accurate it seems to be, adjust the output to remove unwanted noise and
> propose for review a few lines that seem to do the job for you ?
> 

As I said, Sasha *already does this for AUTOSEL*.  So it seems this problem has
already been solved, but Sasha and Greg are not coordinating with each other.

Anyway, it's hard to have much motivation to try to contribute to scripts that
not only can I not use or test myself, but before even getting to that point,
pretty much any ideas for improvements are strongly pushed back on.  Earlier I
was actually going to go into more detail about some ideas for how to flag and
review potential problems with backporting a commit, but I figured why bother
given how this thread has been going.

(Also I presume anything that would add *any* human time on the stable
maintainers' end per patch, on average, would be strongly pushed back on too?
But I have no visibility into what would be acceptable.  I don't do their job.)

- Eric