Re: [PATCH] scripts: Add intended executable mode and SPDX license

[Solar Designer <solar@openwall.com>]

[CC list trimmed]

On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 02:54:05PM +0530, Mrinal Pandey wrote:
>  mode change 100644 => 100755 scripts/gcc-plugins/gen-random-seed.sh

This is basically the only change relevant to the contribution initially
made via kernel-hardening, and in my opinion (and I am list admin) isn't
worth bringing to the list.  Now we have this bikeshed thread in here
(and I'm guilty for adding to it), and would have more (which I hope
this message of mine will prevent) if changes to something else in the
patch(es) are requested (which Greg KH sort of already did).

I recall we previously had lots of "similar" bikeshedding in here when
someone was converting the documentation to rST.  The more bikeshedding
we have, the less actual kernel-hardening work is going to happen,
because the list gets the reputation of yet another kernel maintenance
list rather than the place where actual/potential new contributions to
improve the kernel's security are discussed, and because bikeshedding
makes the most capable people unsubscribe or stop paying attention.

How about we remove kernel-hardening from the MAINTAINERS entries it's
currently in? -

GCC PLUGINS
M:      Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
R:      Emese Revfy <re.emese@gmail.com>
L:      kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com
S:      Maintained
F:      Documentation/kbuild/gcc-plugins.rst
F:      scripts/Makefile.gcc-plugins
F:      scripts/gcc-plugin.sh
F:      scripts/gcc-plugins/

LEAKING_ADDRESSES
M:      Tobin C. Harding <me@tobin.cc>
M:      Tycho Andersen <tycho@tycho.ws>
L:      kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com
S:      Maintained
T:      git git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tobin/leaks.git
F:      scripts/leaking_addresses.pl

Alternatively, would this be acceptable? -

L:      kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com (only for messages focused on core functionality, not for maintenance detail)

I think the latter would be best, if allowed.

Kees, please comment (so that we'd hopefully not need that next time),
and if you agree please make a change to MAINTAINERS.

Mrinal, we appreciate your contribution, and the problem above isn't
yours - it's with the way MAINTAINERS doesn't fit this group well.

Thanks,

Alexander