Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:7 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:7;
Date:   Wed, 27 Sep 2023 09:01:38 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To:     Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
Cc:     Justin Stitt <justinstitt@google.com>,
        Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>,
        geert@linux-m68k.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
        workflows@vger.kernel.org, mario.limonciello@amd.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] get_maintainer: add patch-only keyword matching
Message-ID: <202309270859.B83F72E179@keescook>
References: <20230927-get_maintainer_add_d-v1-0-28c207229e72@google.com>
 <CAKwvOdn4wwaBYzddLuXunjvCyH7HU8Brds-ZCYzsSxsAg4275Q@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CAKwvOdn4wwaBYzddLuXunjvCyH7HU8Brds-ZCYzsSxsAg4275Q@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Sep 27, 2023 at 08:24:58AM -0700, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 8:19 PM Justin Stitt <justinstitt@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > This series aims to add "D:" which behaves exactly the same as "K:" but
> > works only on patch files.
> >
> > The goal of this is to reduce noise when folks use get_maintainer on
> > tree files as opposed to patches. This use case should be steered away
> > from [1] but "D:" should help maintainers reduce noise in their inboxes
> > regardless, especially when matching omnipresent keywords like [2]. In
> > the event of [2] Kees would be to/cc'd from folks running get_maintainer
> > on _any_ file containing "__counted_by". The number of these files is
> > rising and I fear for his inbox as his goal, as I understand it, is to
> > simply monitor the introduction of new __counted_by annotations to
> > ensure accurate semantics.
> 
> Something like this (whether this series or a different approach)
> would be helpful to me as well; we use K: to get cc'ed on patches
> mentioning clang or llvm, but our ML also then ends up getting cc'ed
> on every follow up patch to most files.
> 
> This is causing excessive posts on our ML. As a result, it's a
> struggle to get folks to cc themselves to the ML, which puts the code
> review burden on fewer people.
> 
> Whether it's a new D: or refinement to the behavior of K:, I applaud
> the effort.  Hopefully we can find an approach that works for
> everyone.

Yes, please! I would use this immediately -- there are a bunch of places
where pstore, strings, hardening, etc all want review if certain
functions or structures are changed in a patch, but we're not
maintainers of the files they appear in.

> > Justin Stitt (3):
> >       MAINTAINERS: add documentation for D:
> >       get_maintainer: add patch-only pattern matching type

Can we squash these two changes together, and then likely add some
patches for moving things out of K: ?

-- 
Kees Cook