linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: update MEMORY MAPPING section

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: <b538fe66-21f5-47ac-8469-5eb2bed3362b@suse.cz>
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2024 10:10:40 +0100
From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To: Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>
Cc: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>,
 Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Jeff Xu <jeffxu@...omium.org>,
 "Liam R . Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
 linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: update MEMORY MAPPING section

On 12/13/24 10:00, Yu Zhao wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 13, 2024 at 1:25 AM Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz> wrote:
>>
>> On 12/13/24 06:50, Yu Zhao wrote:
>> > On Wed, Dec 11, 2024 at 11:57 AM Lorenzo Stoakes
>> > <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > I'd like to be added as a reviewer on mm/mseal.c.  Is there any way to
>> >> > indicate this from this file ?
>>
>> I don't think the format and tooling supports adding a reviewer for a single
>> file out of a subsystem. mm/mseal.c would have to be an own subsystem, or
>> Jeff would be indicated as a reviewer for whole memory mapping.
>>
>> >> This is something we can consider in the future, sure.
>> >
>> > What'd be the downsides of having an additional reviewer?
>>
>> General answer to general question: being R: means 1. getting email for
>> patches touching the files (if people use tooling properly, sigh). This can
>> be also achieved on the receiver wised by e.g. the lei tool.
>> 2. being perceived as an authority for people sending patches, some of them
>> not being familiar with the subsystem and the people working on it.
> 
> I think you are saying 1 & 2 above (the meaning of being R) can lead
> to the following?
> 
>> This is
>> why it could be counter productive to be given out to just anyone who asks.
> 
> I understand the words, but I still don't see the logical connection.

I said "General answer to general question". You don't see a problem with
giving R: to anyone who asks, given they're now perceived as an authority by
people not very familiar with a subsystem, sending a patch and getting the
info from MAINTAINERS?

> Also, Jeff is not "anyone", and I'm not sure why he can't be
> "perceived as an authority" on mseal.

I didn't want to say anything about Jeff specifically as I haven't
interacted with him myself much. I know he did mseal but explained how
adding him R: here would not make him reviewer only for mseal.

> Anyway, I would encourage more technical contributions rather than
> "administrative" barriers.

Maybe a technical contribution to get_maintainers.pl to make it possible for
R: for a specific file? :)