linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v6 1/5] Thread-local ABI system call: cache CPU number of running thread

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:	Thu, 7 Apr 2016 09:59:36 -0700
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-api <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
	Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>, Andrew Hunter <ahh@...gle.com>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Dave Watson <davejwatson@...com>, Chris Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
	Ben Maurer <bmaurer@...com>, rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
	Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v6 1/5] Thread-local ABI system call: cache CPU number
 of running thread

On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 9:50 AM, Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> (AFAICS set_robust_list was designed with such extensions in mind.)

This is a disease among people who have been taught computer science.
People think that "designing with extensions in mind" is a good idea.

It's a _horrible_ idea.

If you think that "design with extensions in mind" is a good idea,
you're basically saying "I don't know what I might want to do".

I'm not interested in those kinds of kernel interfaces. EVERY SINGLE
TIME when we add a new random non-standard interface that isn't
already used by lots and lots of people, the end result is the same:
nobody actually uses it. There might be one or two very obscure
libraries that use it, and then a couple of special applications that
use those libraries. And that's it.

So unless there is a clear use-case, and clear semantics that people
can agree on as being truly generic and useful for a lot of different
cases, excuse me for being less than impressed.

Anything with a "let's add feature fields" is broken shit. BY DEFINITION.

See my argument?

And btw, ask yourself how well that set_robust_list() extension worked?

(Answer sheet to the above question: it was pure garbage. Instead of
actually ever being extended, the "struct robust_list_head" not only
is fixed, it was horribly misdesigned to the point of requiring a
compat system call. Pure garbage, in other words, and an example of
how *not* to do user interfaces).

                 Linus