linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Associate GDB scripts with their subsystems

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1efcc990-957f-4b33-9fe8-59cb2c36fed4@broadcom.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2025 14:17:50 -0700
From: Florian Fainelli <florian.fainelli@...adcom.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
 Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@...mens.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kbingham@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Associate GDB scripts with their subsystems

On 6/25/25 13:22, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jun 2025 21:38:20 +0200 Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@...mens.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 25.06.25 19:52, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>>> The GDB scripts under scripts/gdb/linux are very useful for inspecting
>>> kernel data structures however they depend upon the internal APIs and
>>> data structures which are updated without much consideration for those
>>> scripts. This results in a near constant catching up with fixing the
>>> scripts so they continue to work.
>>>
>>> Associate the GDB scripts with their subsystems in the hope that they
>>> get more love and attention.
>>>
>>
>> ...
>>
>> I will surely support any proposal that helps connecting the scripts
>> with subsystems they address. However, you should likely break up this
>> one here into per-subsystem patches and address each affected
>> maintainer. They should have a chance to accept or reject this potential
>> extension of their responsibility.
> 
> I agree - this proposal doesn't seem very practical, really.

Yes, that's a good point it should be on a per-subsystem basis to decide 
whether they are willing to take on the maintenance, if nothing else the 
reporting.

> 
> It might actually be harmful - if someone has an issue with a gdb script
> they'll report that to the subsystem maintainer rather than to the GDB
> script maintainers who are better equipped to address the issue.

If they run scripts/get_maintainer.pl they will get both subsystems to 
be listed as recipients to reach out to, so that should help cross 
pollinate and ease the pain of fixing.

> 
> And I'm not sure there's really a problem to fix here.  I'm seeing 13
> commits to scripts/gdb this year and afaict only one (e0349c46cb4f
> ("scripts/gdb/linux/symbols.py: address changes to module_sect_attrs"))
> looks like it is fixing up such a problem.

There are a few more that result from breakage that could have been avoided:

https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250601055027.3661480-1-tony.ambardar@gmail.com/

https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250619225105.320729-1-florian.fainelli@broadcom.com/

and the recent ones for interrupts.py.
-- 
Florian