Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] docs: stable-kernel-rules: explain use of stable@xxxxxxxxxx (w/o @vger.)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 09:18:29AM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> Document when to use of stable@xxxxxxxxxx instead of
> stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, as the two are easily mixed up and their
> difference not explained anywhere[1].
> 
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240422231550.3cf5f723@xxxxxxx/ [1]
> Signed-off-by: Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst | 4 ++++
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst b/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst
> index b4af627154f1d8..ebf4152659f2d0 100644
> --- a/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst
> @@ -72,6 +72,10 @@ for stable trees, add this tag in the sign-off area::
>  
>    Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>  
> +Use ``Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxx`` instead when fixing unpublished vulnerabilities:
> +it reduces the chance of accidentally exposing the fix to the public by way of
> +'git send-email', as mails sent to that address are not delivered anywhere.

The "fun" part of just saying this is that then it is a huge "signal" to
others that "hey, this might be a security fix!" when it lands in
Linus's tree.  But hey, we do what we can, I know my scripts always use
this address just to put a bit more noise into that signal :)

That being said, it's good to have this documented now, thanks for it:

Reviewed-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>





[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux FS]     [Yosemite Forum]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Device Mapper]     [Linux Resources]

  Powered by Linux