linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] serial/pmac_zilog: Remove flawed mitigation for rx irq flood

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: <87v84sbexv.fsf@mail.lhotse>
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2024 15:29:00 +1000
From: Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
To: Finn Thain <fthain@...ux-m68k.org>, Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>,
 Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
 <benh@...nel.crashing.org>, Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
 Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>, "Aneesh Kumar K.V"
 <aneesh.kumar@...nel.org>, "Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@...ux.ibm.com>,
 linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-serial@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] serial/pmac_zilog: Remove flawed mitigation for rx irq
 flood

Finn Thain <fthain@...ux-m68k.org> writes:
> On Fri, 5 Apr 2024, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>> >> > > ---
>> >> > (here is a good location for Cc:)
>> >>
>> >> Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst indicats that it should 
>> >> be above the "---" separator together with Acked-by etc. Has this 
>> >> convention changed recently?
>> 
>> The docs don't really say where to put the Cc: tags, although they are 
>> mentioned along with other tags which clearly are intended to go above 
>> the separator.
>
> I see no ambiguity there. What's the point of copying the message headers 
> into the message body unless it was intended that they form part of the 
> commit log?

In many cases I think it's the reverse. The Cc headers are in the commit
log *so that* git-send-email will add them to the Cc list when the patch
is sent.

In that case they can sit below the separator and still function.

IMO there is no value in having them in the commit log. The fact that
someone was Cc'ed on a patch 10 years ago is not interesting. If it ever
was interesting, for some forensic purpose, the mail archives would be
the place to look anyway.

>> > I see, I will prepare a patch to discuss this aspect.
>> 
>> FYI there was a discussion about this several years ago, where at least 
>> some maintainers agreed that Cc: tags don't add much value and are 
>> better placed below the --- separator.
>> 
>
> Maintainers who merge patches almost always add tags. And they can use the 
> Cc tags from the message headers if they wish to. Or they can omit them or 
> remove them. I don't mind. And I'd be happy to resubmit the patch with 
> different tags if that's what is needed by the workflow used by Jiri Slaby 
> or Greg Kroah-Hartman.

Many maintainers won't drop Cc: tags if they are there in the submitted
patch. So I agree with Andy that we should encourage folks not to add
them in the first place.

But that's getting very off topic for your submission :)

cheers