linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/5] fix rootfstype=tmpfs

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:   Thu, 9 Nov 2023 10:46:40 -0600
From:   Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>
To:     Stefan Berger <stefanb@...ux.ibm.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] fix rootfstype=tmpfs

On 11/9/23 10:42, Rob Landley wrote:
> On 11/8/23 16:05, Stefan Berger wrote:
>> Can you repost this patch or should I do it?
> 
> They're more likely to listen to you.

P.S. I have a pile of local kernel patches (accidentally attached to the
_previous_ message, but decided this part was not good to post to lkml) that
I've despaired of upstream ever being interested in, and have "rebase/test them
all on 6.6 kernel for the ~dozen architectures I track"
(https://landley.net/bin/mkroot/latest/) as a local todo item I haven't gotten
to yet. It's on the "list of things I feel guilty about not having done yet".
Speaking of which:

Hi Andrew! I'm sorry I didn't reply to your last email on the list (and instead
just blogged about it, https://landley.net/notes-2023.html#24-02-2023 and
blogged about feeling guilty about still having not replied on April 11 and June
25), but is I cc'd the people scripts/get_maintainer.pl said to, and if that's
no longer enough I don't even _pretend_ to understand the process here anymore,
but don't know how to say that without being political.

Take this reposting thing: clearly you HAVE the patch. That's not the issue. And
it's not a The-SCO-Lawsuit-scared-us-by: permission-to-use issue either, because
I posted it to the list with all the paperwork filled out as best I know how,
which I _think_ was recently acknowledged by the person multiple steps up the
chain of the approval process.

I'm _guessing_ the issue here is the need to refile the paperwork to officially
restart a multi-step bureaucratic process, with nothing actually having changed
since last time that I can tell. Possibly just put the expired form back in the
inbox and let literally the same one go through again like a janky dollar bill
scanner.

I'm very bad at sticking the form in the slot and hoping someone will eventually
see it, with the form getting lost vs being denied looking exactly the same for
an indeterminate period of time. I travel to places in person and wait in long
lines and show ID to get to talk to a human where possible. Linux-kernel hasn't
really provided that option for quite a while.

And I didn't want to say _that_ either. It seems impolite. You are full-time
kernel developers, and I am not. I'm not here to criticize your process, I've
just been unable to meaningfully participate in the impersonal bureaucracy it's
become since... I think I gave up in 2017? https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/9/17/1 is
still in my patch list. I'd happily drop it if upstream had fixed it a different
way, but it's been 8 years. That "all bugs are shallow" open source code review
stuff demonstrably stopped working for this project quite some time ago.

Rob