From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mta1.formilux.org (mta1.formilux.org [51.159.59.229]) (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 67E662FFDEA; Mon, 27 Apr 2026 16:09:56 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=51.159.59.229 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1777306198; cv=none; b=r3PFwKqY+x7gzJHbdTiBrgsbt2BWlzrcpxgVfHt89tFHor5jlR4+e5QQHaJ8jMqXaRSu3MmxytBUj9OrRyyn8FeqxznbKyfhanQKmDnpc0mgWn/swH0SEOQyRjrRYXkK3SytMYz7UBOMsaUZeQJi1ZVCG9fDA022RpUPyTxW7/0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1777306198; c=relaxed/simple; bh=6PCjWpf/TcX1fr3PqzO0NoxIcrlrRFRlClDFHnZ2Gg4=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=H0wRYQNaFkIV0gy1qNuzfRcyqzn679FUUKKjLa+ZeQbO2dZHuXpERs7KZQE6TECl8S8WkY9I3iolYuoVZ8SKYoxZvftpUDKbPGkG0/CUHFFnfGi380G3y/5vpWWxAzzl25041cLS0JAb2BcZAW4eNkN+c+pFbxlrttjbA1KPj5k= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=1wt.eu; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=1wt.eu; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=1wt.eu header.i=@1wt.eu header.b=rPv1oHYj; arc=none smtp.client-ip=51.159.59.229 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=1wt.eu Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=1wt.eu Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=1wt.eu header.i=@1wt.eu header.b="rPv1oHYj" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1wt.eu; s=mail; t=1777306194; bh=UEjUKyheWtRvd0JjqNjN5By2/ywWhTc/J/VtxRqj6OM=; h=From:Message-ID:From; b=rPv1oHYjYNoBExAId4ifyKCQWhVV/vlLkfUD8ua8NEUAYgHiFM0MIruxYsibxh552 /RpYBh5AEei1YdUPzoUOID8BWYYiL32G8IHLGoCdoM0NjnZF0rxBZLr+k/mv6uxfMV Xu97LTOe7i+7nqjhTV08cBRrtiEpO7aorqgFlnk4= Received: from 1wt.eu (ded1.1wt.eu [163.172.96.212]) by mta1.formilux.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A868CC0B69; Mon, 27 Apr 2026 18:09:54 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2026 18:09:54 +0200 From: Willy Tarreau To: Greg KH Cc: leon@kernel.org, security@kernel.org, Jonathan Corbet , skhan@linuxfoundation.org, workflows@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] Documentation: security-bugs: do not systematically Cc the security team Message-ID: References: <20260426163914.19449-1-w@1wt.eu> <20260426163914.19449-2-w@1wt.eu> <2026042727-recital-twiddling-eb22@gregkh> <2026042727-unselect-unlaced-37bb@gregkh> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2026042727-unselect-unlaced-37bb@gregkh> On Mon, Apr 27, 2026 at 09:33:12AM -0600, Greg KH wrote: > On Mon, Apr 27, 2026 at 05:24:06PM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 27, 2026 at 07:49:08AM -0600, Greg KH wrote: > > > On Sun, Apr 26, 2026 at 06:39:12PM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > > > With the increase of automated reports, the security team is dealing > > > > with way more messages than really needed. The reporting process works > > > > well with most teams so there is no need to systematically involve the > > > > security team in reports. > > > > > > > > Let's suggest to keep it for small lists of recipients, to cover the > > > > risk of lost messages (spam, vacation etc) but to avoid it for larger > > > > teams. > > > > > > > > Cc: Greg KH > > > > Cc: Leon Romanovsky > > > > Signed-off-by: Willy Tarreau > > > > > > This is going to cut down on emails to us a bunch, which might be good, > > > or not, as now we'll not have a way to know what's going on overall. > > > But hey, let's try it and see what happens! > > > > Or maybe we could suggest that first reports from a reporter should > > always Cc the list ? After all, every time we asked to drop the list > > was for senders at their 5th or 10th submission. Maybe we could just > > say that the list members prefer not being repetitively CCed by the > > same submitters to invest more time on newcomers ? > > Yes, that might be better, otherwise maintainers are going to get some > pretty foolish reports with out the context of howing to properly at > least push back on them, like we have gotten good at doing :) Yes, and more importantly, we know how to react while some maintainers getting their first report are stressed. Let me try to rework it. Thanks! Willy