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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <20170516.124129.292555623308256441.davem@davemloft.net> Date: Tue, 16 May 2017 12:41:29 -0400 (EDT) From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> To: dledford@...hat.com Cc: hch@....de, Bart.VanAssche@...disk.com, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org, ubraun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] net/smc: mark as BROKEN due to remote memory exposure From: Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com> Date: Tue, 16 May 2017 12:36:01 -0400 > On Tue, 2017-05-16 at 18:30 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 12:29:23PM -0400, David Miller wrote: >> > >> > I can't push back on people with silly coding style and small >> > semantic >> > issues forever. And I think I made a serious effort to keep the >> > patches getting posted over and over again to make sure they got >> > more >> > exposure. >> >> You can tell them to go to linux-rdma. I'm sending people to the >> right >> mailing list all the time. > > Indeed. Every single time a patch comes into linux-rdma that touches > things in net/ or include/net, unless it is exceedingly minor, I check > the To:/Cc: lines on the email and if netdev@ isn't included, or in the > case of complex/tricky items, you aren't directly Cc:ed, then I > specifically tell them to include netdev@ and/or you. I've even had > things like a 12 patch series that buried three netdev@ appropriate > patches at different points in the series and told the submitter to > move all of the netdev@ related patches to the front and submit them to > netdev@ so they can be reviewed as a group before I would move on to > the others. It's just what you do. I've always considered that part > of my job. To be quite honest it wasn't exceedingly clear, even to me, that this had such implications or was directly a RDMA thing. From my perspective while reviewing I saw a patch series adding it's own protocol stack living inside of it's own directory under net/ And, if even one RDMA/infiniband person said to me "you really shouldn't apply this" then I would have dropped it on the spot.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists