netdev - Re: [PATCH net 3/4] can: raw: instantly reject disabled CAN frames

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: <a8a6eb54-fbc3-4468-bc16-df0ed8eddf6d@hartkopp.net>
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2026 14:27:26 +0100
From: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>
To: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org,
 linux-can@...r.kernel.org, kernel@...gutronix.de,
 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Vincent Mailhol <mailhol@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 3/4] can: raw: instantly reject disabled CAN frames


On 15.01.26 13:26, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> On 1/15/26 10:18 AM, Oliver Hartkopp wrote:

>> And I was wondering why my patch was marked "yellow"
>>
>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/patch/20260114105212.1034554-4-mkl@pengutronix.de/
>>
>> The AI review marked the patch as "yellow" but the review result was not
>> accessible until midnight.
>>
>> A direct feedback to the authors would be helpful.
> 
> The AI review is intentionally "revealed" in PW after a grace period to
> avoid random people sending unreviewed/half-finished patches to the ML
> just to get the AI review.
> 
> I insisted to raise such grace period to 24h to align with the maximum
> re-submit rate, but I did not consider carefully the trusted PR cases.

Thanks for the explanation!

IMO the grace period is generally fine to control the re-submit rate.

Btw. automatically informing only the author (who's very likely in 
charge to provide a fix) would be helpful. E.g. when a PR/patchset is 
processed completely.

That would at least avoid patches from random people but would give more 
time to the author to think about his faults ;-)

Best regards,
Oliver