linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] kdbus for 4.1-rc1

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, 14 Apr 2015 21:48:04 +0200
From:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
Cc:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Tom Gundersen <teg@...m.no>, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Daniel Mack <daniel@...que.org>,
	David Herrmann <dh.herrmann@...il.com>,
	Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@...ndz.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] kdbus for 4.1-rc1

On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 08:40:04PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 09:32:29PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 09:24:29PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 09:23:57PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > > You might not like the design, but it is a valid design.  Again, we
> > > > don't refuse to support hardware that is designed badly.
> > > 
> > > Yeah except the small difference that unlike this, we can't change
> > > hardware.
> > 
> > And we can't change the design/implementation of many things, again,
> > it's not the kernel's job to prevent something, just because we don't
> > like the RFC, from being accepted.
> 
> Translate, please.  What exactly will be prevented by NAK on your Fine
> Piece Of Software?  Not dbus working as it does, surely?

I don't understand.  You can not like the D-Bus model (and accordingly
the X11 model), but to prevent users from wanting to use it in a more
secure, and faster way by implementing it like we have seems very odd to
me.

It's not going to stop anything from working, it's just going to stop
some programs from being able to do things they really want to do (see
the first email for examples.)

Yes, we could make this live outside the kernel tree, but that's not the
way we work anymore.  We merge things that are useful, that match our
security and coding requirements, and are going to be maintained by
people we trust.  To have the only major objection be "we don't like the
way the protocol is designed because we know better, sorry", isn't ok at
all.

greg k-h
--
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/