netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] net: Variable SLAAC: SLAAC with prefixes of arbitrary length in PIO

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, 12 Nov 2020 17:53:01 -0800
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc:     kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>,
        Dmytro Shytyi <dmytro@...tyi.net>,
        kuznet <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
        yoshfuji <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
        liuhangbin <liuhangbin@...il.com>, davem <davem@...emloft.net>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kbuild-all@...ts.01.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: Variable SLAAC: SLAAC with prefixes of
 arbitrary length in PIO

On Thu, 12 Nov 2020 17:43:56 -0800 Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 11/12/20 4:24 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Wed, 11 Nov 2020 09:34:24 +0800 kernel test robot wrote:  
> >> If you fix the issue, kindly add following tag as appropriate
> >> Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>  
> > Good people of kernel test robot, could you please rephrase this to say
> > that the tag is only appropriate if someone is sending a fix up/follow
> > up patch?
> > 
> > Folks keep adding those tags on the next revisions of the their patches
> > which is quite misleading.  
> 
> I think it's still fair for the lkp folks to get *some* credit for
> reporting these bugs.  I mean, the stated reason[1] for it existing is:
> 
> 	The Reported-by tag gives credit to people who find bugs and
> 	report them and it hopefully inspires them to help us again in
> 	the future.
> 
> I do agree, though, that it's confusing *what* they reported, especially
> if the patch in question is fixing something *else*.  Rather than invent
> a new tag, maybe a comment would suffice:
> 
> Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com> # bug in earlier revision

Fine by me, although its not common to add Reported-by tags for people
who point out issues in review, so why add a tag for the bot?