linux-kernel - [PATCH RFC 0/1] Update CPER maintainership

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <cover.1767694575.git.mchehab+huawei@kernel.org>
Date: Tue,  6 Jan 2026 11:24:25 +0100
From: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@...nel.org>
To: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@...nel.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH RFC 0/1] Update CPER maintainership

Hi Ard/Rafael,

This is a suggestion, so I'm marking it as a RFC.

At least on my eyes, and looking at the discussions on this thread:
    https://lore.kernel.org/all/20251222091334.5cb8465f@foz.lan/

It sounds to me that the better would be to have the code under cper*
maintained together with APEI code, as the main source of CPER records
is via APEI/GHES.

So, at least on my eyes, people maintaining and reviewing should be
the same - or a superset of what's currently there.

The patch on this series:

1. Add cper* files to APEI;
2. remove them from EFI - mostly to avoid having two maintainers for
   the same file.

Another option would be to do just (1), keeping the CPER files listed
on two maintainers' entries.

Comments?

Regards,
Mauro

Mauro Carvalho Chehab (1):
  MAINTAINERS: add cper to APEI files

 MAINTAINERS | 2 ++
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)

-- 
2.52.0