netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v8 04/11] bpf: move prog->aux->linked_prog and trampoline into bpf

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]

Date:   Thu, 24 Sep 2020 23:30:51 +0200
From:   Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
To:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Cc:     Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
        Eelco Chaudron <echaudro@...hat.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@...omium.org>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v8 04/11] bpf: move prog->aux->linked_prog and
 trampoline into bpf_link on attach


>> > I think I will just start marking patches as changes-requested when I see that
>> > they break tests without replying and without reviewing.
>> > Please respect reviewer's time.
>>
>> That is completely fine if the tests are working in the first place. And
>> even when they're not (like in this case), pointing it out is fine, and
>> I'll obviously go investigate. But please at least reply to the email,
>> not all of us watch patchwork regularly.
>
> Please see Documentation/bpf/bpf_devel_QA.rst.
> patchwork status is the way we communicate the intent.
> If the patch is not in the queue it won't be acted upon.

I do realise that you guys use patchwork as the status tracker, but from
a submitter PoV, in practice a change there is coupled with an email
either requesting something change, or notifying of merge. Which is
fine, and I'm not asking you to do anything differently. I'm just
suggesting that if you start silently marking patches as 'changes
requested' without emailing the submitter explaining why, that will just
going to end up creating confusion, and you'll get questions and/or
identical resubmissions. So it won't actually solve anything...

(And to be clear, I'm not saying this because I plan to deliberately
submit patches with broken selftests in the future!)

-Toke