netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] gve: Add retry logic for recoverable adminq errors

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: <20240701142502.1a831c74@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2024 14:25:02 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Rushil Gupta <rushilg@...gle.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, jeroendb@...gle.com, pkaligineedi@...gle.com,
 davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, pabeni@...hat.com,
 willemb@...gle.com, hramamurthy@...gle.com, Shailend Chand
 <shailend@...gle.com>, Ziwei Xiao <ziweixiao@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] gve: Add retry logic for recoverable adminq
 errors

On Sat, 29 Jun 2024 10:56:27 -0700 Rushil Gupta wrote:
> > Since Jeroen is a maintainer of this driver, and you are not listed
> > in the MAINTAINERS file I don't understand why you're the one sending
> > this. We can't teach everyone at google the upstream process one by
> > one so I'd like to request that only the listed maintainers post pure
> > GVE patches (or the folks who are heavily involved upstream).  
> 
> I could not find one single documentation that says only listed
> maintainers can post pure patches.
> Authors of some of the recently accepted patches were in fact not in
> the MAINTAINERS file.

It's not documented because we have to resort to it very rarely.
The escalation path is - remind of the process -> request that
someone knowledgeable reviews the code prior to posting -> limit
submitters.

> I am sending this patch as I was involved in getting this code to the
> upstream-ready state and testing it internally.
> However, if other GVE maintainers wish to follow this rule; I am ok
> with your suggestion.