On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 10:30:49AM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > On 29.04.24 09:51, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > 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 +Use ``Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxx`` instead when fixing unpublished vulnerabilities: 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 :) > > Yeah, that's likely true. :-D > > FWIW, we could stay more vague here and use a text like """Use ``Cc: > stable@xxxxxxxxxx`` instead when fixing something that should be kept > private for the timing being: it will prevent the change for > accidentally being exposed to the public through 'git send-email', as > mails sent to that address are not delivered anywhere.""" > > The sign would not be that huge anymore, but I'm not sure if that makes > any difference. Yeah, let's leave this as-is for now. > > That being said, it's good to have this documented now, thanks for it: > > yw! > > > Reviewed-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Many thx for your feedback to this and the other patches. Do you want to > pick those up (last time I changes something in that text that was the > case) or let Jonathan handle them? Which ever Jonathan finds easier is fine for me. thanks, greg k-h
