On Thu, Apr 02, 2026 at 11:42:51AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: > > > On 4/2/26 11:26 AM, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > These days, 80% of the work done by the security team consists in > > locating the affected subsystem in a report, running get_maintainers on > > it, forwarding the report to these persons and responding to the reporter > > with them in Cc. This is a huge and unneeded overhead that we must try to > > lower for a better overall efficiency. This patch adds a complete section > > explaining how to figure the list of recipients to send the report to. > > > > Cc: Eric Dumazet <[email protected]> > > Cc: Greg KH <[email protected]> > > Signed-off-by: Willy Tarreau <[email protected]> > > --- > > Documentation/process/security-bugs.rst | 76 ++++++++++++++++++++++++- > > 1 file changed, 73 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/process/security-bugs.rst > > b/Documentation/process/security-bugs.rst > > index da7937fd59df..6937fa9fba5a 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/process/security-bugs.rst > > +++ b/Documentation/process/security-bugs.rst > > > > Markdown, HTML and RST formatted reports are particularly frowned upon > > since > > they're quite hard to read for humans and encourage to use dedicated > > viewers, > > sometimes online, which by definition is not acceptable for a confidential > > -security report. > > +security report. Note that some mailers tend to mangle formatting of plain > > +text by default, please consult :doc:`the email client howto > > +<../process/email-clients>` for more info. > > Just use the file name and let automarkup do its job: > > text by default; please consult Documentation/process/email-clients.rst > for more information. > > It's also more convenient for text readers that way.
If that's supposed to work, I'm indeed all for it! I must confess that I have not even understood the reason for "../process" when coming from the same directory, but I just picked that from existing entries. Thanks for your feedback, much appreciated! Willy
