Re: [PATCH] Documentation: insist on the plain-text requirement for security reports
From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Date: 2025-12-01 07:13:07
Also in:
lkml
From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Date: 2025-12-01 07:13:07
Also in:
lkml
On Mon, Dec 01, 2025 at 07:38:17AM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
On Sat, Nov 29, 2025 at 03:17:41PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:quoted
As the trend of AI-generated reports is growing, the trend of unreadable reports in gimmicky formats is following, and we cannot request that developers rely on online viewers to be able to read a security report full for formatting tags. Let's just insist on the plain text requirement a bit more. Signed-off-by: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> --- Documentation/process/security-bugs.rst | 6 +++++- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)Looks good to me! Given the number of non-plain-text emails with binary attachments we still get there, it's obvious not many people seem to read this file, but it can't hurt! :)
At least it gives us a place to point to, saying "look at the rules".
I'll queue this up if Jon doesn't, after -rc1 is out. If he wants to take it, here's my: Reviewed-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Thanks! Oh BTW I'm noticing a typo in the commit message above "full for" instead of "full of". Feel free to adjust it while applying, though it's really not important (and no, I won't respin a patch just for this :-)). Willy