netdev - Re: Dealing with bugzilla

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: <0ad84ba7-88ff-45bc-8a2e-3c1f3a384950@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2024 16:06:11 -0700
From: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>
To: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>, Florian Westphal
	<fw@...len.de>
CC: <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Dealing with bugzilla



On 9/19/2024 9:43 AM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Sep 2024 18:17:09 +0200
> Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de> wrote:
> 
>> Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org> wrote:
>>> Up until now, I have been the volunteer screener of networking related bugzilla bugs.
>>> I would like to get out of doing that.  
>>
>> Understandable, thanks for doing all the prefiltering work all these
>> years!
>>
>>> The alternatives are:
>>>    1. Change the bugzilla forwarding to netdev@...r.kernel.org (ie no screening)  
>>
>> "OH NEIN !!!11"
>>
>>>    2. Get a new volunteer to screen  
>>
>> Even if someone would volunteer I don't think it would be good to have
>> this burden on one person alone.
>>
>>>    3. Make a new mailing list target on vger (ie netdev-bugs@...r.kernel.org)  
>>
>> I'd go for 3) and see how that works out.
>>
>>>    4. Find someone to make a bot to use get_maintainer somehow to forward  
>>
>> I'd say 3, then see if it can be refined somehow.
>> 3) would also allow to get an impression on the volume, the signal/noise ratio etc.
>>
>>>    5. Blackhole the bugzilla reports.
>>>    6. Bounce all the bugzilla reports somehow.  
>>
>> 5 & 6 are worse than 7), which would be to close bugzilla
>> and keep it readonly archive.
> 
> Volume is about 1 report every 2 weeks with about 10% dropped.
> Most of the drops are because the report is for an vendor kernel which is tainted
> or end of life.
> 

That seems low enough volume that a few volunteers could handle it via
something like netdev-bugs.

What do you do with bugs once you screened them? Presumably try to
forward to relevant parties or the main netdev list?