linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH v2 01/12] fs-verity: add a documentation file

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]

Message-ID: <20181221155354.GC10600@bombadil.infradead.org>
Date:   Fri, 21 Dec 2018 07:53:54 -0800
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To:     "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
        "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>,
        Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>,
        linux-fscrypt@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
        linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>,
        Victor Hsieh <victorhsieh@...gle.com>,
        Chandan Rajendra <chandan@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/12] fs-verity: add a documentation file

On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 10:47:14AM -0500, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> Linus --- we're going round and round, and I don't think this is
> really a technical dispute at this point, but rather an aesthetics
> one.  Will you be willing to accept my pull request for a feature
> which is being shippped on millions of Android phones, has been out
> for review for months, and for which, if we *really* need to add
> uselessly complicated interface later, we can do that?  It's always
> been the case for internal Kernel interfaces not to add code "just in
> case" it's useful, but rather when a user turns up.  I argue we should
> be doing the same thing for user-space visible interfaces.

To look at it another way, this is an aesthetic dispute in which all those
who have offered opinions from outside Google -- myself, Dave Chinner &
Christoph all really dislike this interface.  I'd be happy to discuss
alternative interfaces, particularly ones which allow for the current
internal implementation, but I think this interface is really bad.

In contrast to "we'll just fix it up later" (which usually applies
to in-kernel interfaces), we have a policy of not breaking userspace,
so accepting this interface means setting it in stone.  We should get
it right.