linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] Tux3 for review

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:	Tue, 24 Jun 2014 04:27:06 -0700
From:	Daniel Phillips <daniel@...nq.net>
To:	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Cc:	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>, Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Tux3 for review

On Tuesday, June 24, 2014 3:59:40 AM PDT, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 02:10:52AM -0700, Daniel Phillips wrote:
>> 
>> That makes sense, because the patches to transform our workarounds
>> into shiny new kernel hooks are still in progress, as I said. I would
>> appreciate the courtesy of being permitted to take the time to do the
>> work to the necessary quality without being subjected to endless
>> carping about when the patches will be posted.
>
> The feedback which you have been getting, fairly consistently I
> believe, is that it is the shiny new kernel hooks that need to be
> reviewed, not the workarounds.  I don't think it's a matter of people
> not being willing to give you the time to do this work (take all the
> time you need!); but rather that it's premature for you to be asking
> for tux3 to be merged before those patches have been posted and
> reviewed and found to be shiny.

That is not quite right. Before posted the filesystem for review,
we did not know whether core changes or workarounds would be the
better route. Now we do know, and have duly turned our coding
energy to producing a set of decent core hooks. That does not mean
that we are taking Tux3 "out of play". That would just be stupid.

I emphatically disagree that it is premature for asking Tux3 to be
merged. You might think so, but I do not. While I do not begrudge
you your opinion, Linux did not get to the dominant position it has
today by being shy about merging new functionality early. Did we
suddenly lose our mojo just at Tux3 merge time?

If you really think that Tux3 has been offered for merge too early,
then clone our tree, build it, break it and heap abuse on us. That
should take you about one hour if you are right.

Regards,

Daniel
--
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/