| 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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 12:18:33 -0700 From: Roland Dreier <roland@...nel.org> To: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, ksummit-2012-discuss@...ts.linux-foundation.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [Ksummit-2012-discuss] [ATTEND or not ATTEND] That's the question! On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 8:45 AM, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com> wrote: > We can try to address this by "educating developers" or "documenting > the design better" or "delegating to submaintainers" or whatever. > Those are valuable, but in some way they're cop-outs. A more > effective fix would be to remove the landmines, reduce complexity, and > improve the design. If we have coherent code that follows the > hardware architecture and matches people's intuition about how things > "should work," I think we'll get patches with fewer issues. > > Sorry, I think I just reiterated what you, Greg KH, Alan, et al have > already said :) No, I don't think that's just reiteration, I think it's an important point :) There is a certain strain of thinking in our community that is resistant to working on design improvements as you describe. And I think without improving in that direction, we're going to drown in subtly broken patches. - R. -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists