linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/5] WIP: Add syscall unlinkat

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: <CAHO5Pa0_2HE23dPU5Fg-sUgi2-e-szCpqoR98Vd6zE70_yd8Sw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 4 Feb 2015 14:06:14 +0100
From:	Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>
To:	Alexander Holler <holler@...oftware.de>
Cc:	Lukáš Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
	Linux-Fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] WIP: Add syscall unlinkat_s (currently x86* only)

Alexander,

On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 1:22 PM, Alexander Holler <holler@...oftware.de> wrote:
> Am 04.02.2015 um 13:07 schrieb Lukáš Czerner:
>
>> The fact is that the current patches are useless for anything other
>> than proof-of-concept. Now you know more that needs to be done or
>
>
> That's wrong. The patches already work. If you delete a file which isn't in
> use by something else, the current contents will be wiped on traditional
> harddrives. I assume that already fulfills more than 50% of use cases of
> ordinary people.

You are getting various feedback from people, that you seem to be ignoring.

Al Viro, in his curmedgeonly way, points out that the problems are
much deeper than you realize. He does not say so explicitly, but I
imagine his point is that he does not want to see the kernel cluttered
with "partial" solutions that will simply increase the maintenance
burden in the long term, and leave bugs to be fixed further down the
line. You seem not to be listening.

Lukáš points out to you that getting a feature like this into the
kernel is complex process. You seem unwilling to hear that, and still
just want your partial solution.

I tell you that discussions of APIs should CC linux-api, which I am
now CCing into this thread, again, because, again, you're not
listening to feedback.

Nobody is asking for "high towers"; they just have their eyes on the
big picture. And the people here are just "ordinary people" with a
*lot* of experience dealing with kernel code (I exclude myself) . They
see many complexities that you don't. Getting intersting features into
the kernel requires a lot of work, and careful listening.

Thanks,

Michael

-- 
Michael Kerrisk Linux man-pages maintainer;
http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/
Author of "The Linux Programming Interface", http://blog.man7.org/
--
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/