linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Documentation: insist on the plain-text requirement for security reports

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: <20251201071259.GA23487@1wt.eu>
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2025 08:12:59 +0100
From: Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Security Officers <security@...nel.org>,
        kees@...nel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation: insist on the plain-text requirement for
 security reports

On Mon, Dec 01, 2025 at 07:38:17AM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 29, 2025 at 03:17:41PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > As the trend of AI-generated reports is growing, the trend of unreadable
> > reports in gimmicky formats is following, and we cannot request that
> > developers rely on online viewers to be able to read a security report
> > full for formatting tags. Let's just insist on the plain text requirement
> > a bit more.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
> > ---
> >  Documentation/process/security-bugs.rst | 6 +++++-
> >  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> Looks good to me!  Given the number of non-plain-text emails with binary
> attachments we still get there, it's obvious not many people seem to
> read this file, but it can't hurt!  :)

At least it gives us a place to point to, saying "look at the rules".

> I'll queue this up if Jon doesn't, after -rc1 is out.  If he wants to
> take it, here's my:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>

Thanks! Oh BTW I'm noticing a typo in the commit message above
"full for" instead of "full of". Feel free to adjust it while
applying, though it's really not important (and no, I won't
respin a patch just for this :-)).

Willy