From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFF00C001DD for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2023 19:35:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229653AbjGCTfn (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Jul 2023 15:35:43 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:49320 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229504AbjGCTfm (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Jul 2023 15:35:42 -0400 Received: from 1wt.eu (ded1.1wt.eu [163.172.96.212]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 604BAE62; Mon, 3 Jul 2023 12:35:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from willy@localhost) by mail.home.local (8.17.1/8.17.1/Submit) id 363JZBcQ029047; Mon, 3 Jul 2023 21:35:11 +0200 Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2023 21:35:11 +0200 From: Willy Tarreau To: Kees Cook Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman , linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, security@kernel.org, corbet@lwn.net, workflows@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Documentation: security-bugs.rst: clarify CVE handling Message-ID: References: <2023063020-throat-pantyhose-f110@gregkh> <2023063022-retouch-kerosene-7e4a@gregkh> <202306301114.E199B136@keescook> <2023070213-capacity-moneybags-3668@gregkh> <2023070335-groggily-catfish-9ad5@gregkh> <202307031131.51907BC65@keescook> <2023070329-mangy-dipping-2ebd@gregkh> <202307031217.95B8803@keescook> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <202307031217.95B8803@keescook> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: workflows@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jul 03, 2023 at 12:26:32PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > I still think this version of the sentence is more readable: > > However under no circumstances will patch publication be delayed for > CVE identifier assignment. > > "patch inclusion" is less clear to me that "publication", and "be > delayed to wait for" is redundant: a delay is a wait, and "to arrive" > is just the assignment, which is the subject of the paragraph, so better > to keep the language for that consistent. I agree, I find it better as well :-) Thanks, Willy