From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from wout5-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout5-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.21]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E144117FEE for ; Tue, 15 Aug 2023 21:11:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.internal [10.202.2.45]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 608C4320069B; Tue, 15 Aug 2023 17:11:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute5.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 15 Aug 2023 17:11:05 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kroah.com; h=cc :cc:content-type:content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:sender :subject:subject:to:to; s=fm1; t=1692133863; x=1692220263; bh=7T CtomFqxEbstUWKDNp2oR6nIb4dz/rWCX9FlStPb0k=; b=ztlPkN8uYuVexqjQ+Z bPgPsX4kbq4jXyL/O5UkEzFYjeN5MbsoYqS0DdjVV/+093wR7Rf5jAdawG9vzOcZ z79KUHTk4h03UWwJhpcq7LCKK6H8el2OpPSCOP8Fh14kbW6gSughVFT8/pMilJS8 u2+Fl5r5gu64EC9e49O5OZyZNaJQWQbXUvsXiaVQNZQAi19/TuKLDJjnVjbqXuRU vAF3fbxBfDLkU69oKU4Zmpw6FsIYoHVXllVBUGtB+RX67+t567R3lElfuGSFtWlS oo3IbbH0ziwY3+j9KOKoSWaQd0s0MIyBiBCPD9RtT+OrbK/NARK95aqmb9/tkuf/ 24iw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:sender:subject :subject:to:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; t=1692133863; x=1692220263; bh=7TCtomFqxEbst UWKDNp2oR6nIb4dz/rWCX9FlStPb0k=; b=dGGy3+fRQaor8elSj0BQWLoRs8jVN Z9rMvJBIonnnmKY2f+6JSbVGaUYQQSjxqULGvXI4ogUIEoMVyiiXS1QB7Ojihv9y i8syCc+PLNLTGtD/LpV5VS8aeW95u5vjUCkk1fnMscASy95KglsGMS/HwAxNy4Xr ANfZyFx7c7BDkJ3Ikq0u3JSxHpuzZLReWgL6ZTlmLyy/XB05Llp+fPmgvoz6EJ6d 1XeXF47P3AiMrffHFhQ785vBaF2aWqqpXXFbKxFsXwzytpAoBIkdcJg98OQw0QMT +entIwO53CNi8GqquPGjmvGLL40dqO2RQfttYea5uw+Ky8ir+L3EkJwGw== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedviedruddtjedgudehlecutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmd enucfjughrpeffhffvvefukfhfgggtuggjsehttdertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefirhgv ghcumffjuceoghhrvghgsehkrhhorghhrdgtohhmqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeehge dvvedvleejuefgtdduudfhkeeltdeihfevjeekjeeuhfdtueefhffgheekteenucevlhhu shhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehgrhgvgheskhhroh grhhdrtghomh X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i787e41f1:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Tue, 15 Aug 2023 17:11:03 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2023 23:11:01 +0200 From: Greg KH To: Mark Brown Cc: Dave Hansen , Sasha Levin , ksummit@lists.linux.dev Subject: Re: [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Quality standards for embargoed code Message-ID: <2023081527-amendment-professed-0a42@gregkh> References: <53f0072b-91c0-0136-a689-f31e8508a862@sr71.net> <2023081510-monument-sagging-2125@gregkh> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: ksummit@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Tue, Aug 15, 2023 at 09:47:43PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > On Tue, Aug 15, 2023 at 09:57:46PM +0200, Greg KH wrote: > > > Anyway, the main reason we have NOT added testers (nor allowed > > developers to use the test systems from their employer) is that those > > test systems are able to be accessed by a huge/unknown number of other > > people, none of who should have access to the potential changes under > > development. > > > If that can be solved, with a "private" kernelci/lkft/openssf/whatever > > test instance, that would be wonderful. Ideally it should be the > > responsibility of the hardware vendor for which we are fixing their > > broken hardware with kernel changes to provide this for us. > > I think we could usefully have such systems or scripts available which > people could use at their option as part of setting the baseline, > ideally something based on free software so people can stand the stack > up themselves if they want. Probably there will be occasions when it > gets used, if only by upstream people, and it's less stop energy to > point people at something they can concretely use rather than a list of > tests which people might not already know how to run. If it's just a > list of requirements there's more chance people might mess up running in > ways that non-obviously don't actually test the thing. I would _love_ a "stand this stack up myself" type of thing to have, just that alone might solve most of this issue by allowing the developers doing this work to "do it themselves" before even offering the change up to the small group for review. So consider me someone who would gladly consume this type of thing not only for hw-embargoed issues, or for "normal" security issues, but also for my normal development/maintainer workflow as really, they all have the same need here. thanks, greg k-h