linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] kdbus for 4.1-rc1

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 13 Apr 2015 22:37:00 +0200
From:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
Cc:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk,
	teg@...m.no, jkosina@...e.cz, luto@...capital.net,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, daniel@...que.org,
	dh.herrmann@...il.com, tixxdz@...ndz.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] kdbus for 4.1-rc1

On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 09:22:33PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 09:42:17PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > I remain opposed to this half thought out trash of an ABI for the
> > > meta-data.
> > 
> > You don't have to enable the metadata if you don't want to use it, it's
> > an option :)
> 
> OK, _that_ argument needs to be stomped out.  It had been used before,
> and it was a deliberate scam.  There is no such thing as optional kernel
> interface, especially when udev/dbus/systemd crowd is nearby.  We'd been
> through that excuse before; remember how devtmpfs was pushed in as "optional"?
> 
> This is a huge red flag.  On the level of "I need your account information
> to transfer $200M you might have inherited from my deceased client".
> 
> Just to recap how it went the last time around: Kay kept pushing his piece of
> code into the tree, claiming that it was optional, that nobody who doesn't
> like it has to enable it, so what's the problem?  OK, in it went.  And pretty
> soon udev (maintained by the same... meticulously honorable person) had
> stopped working on the kernels that didn't have that enabled.
> 
> We had been there before.  To paraphrase another... meticulously honorable
> person, "if you didn't want something relied upon, why have you put it into the
> kernel?" Said person is on the record as having no problem whatsoever with
> adding dependencies to the bottom of userland stack.
> 
> IMO either it's OK without "if you don't like it, don't enable it", or it
> should not be merged at all.

We want it.  I want it.  Andy asked for the option to be disabled as he
didn't want it, so it was made that way.  I'll gladly put that back in,
as I don't know of any problems with it, other than Eric's vague rants
about the issue.

thanks,

greg k-h
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/