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]

Message-ID: <1831440.HjEAktTL7T@merkaba>
Date:	Wed, 15 Apr 2015 10:18:46 +0200
From:	Martin Steigerwald <martin@...htvoll.de>
To:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc:	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	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

Am Dienstag, 14. April 2015, 18:36:28 schrieb Andy Lutomirski:
> On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 1:22 PM, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> 
wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 09:42:17PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> >> > I remain opposed to this half thought out trash of an ABI for the
> >> > meta-data.
> >> 
> >> You don't have to enable the metadata if you don't want to use it,
> >> it's
> >> an option :)
> > 
> > OK, _that_ argument needs to be stomped out.  It had been used before,
> > and it was a deliberate scam.  There is no such thing as optional
> > kernel interface, especially when udev/dbus/systemd crowd is nearby. 
> > We'd been through that excuse before; remember how devtmpfs was
> > pushed in as "optional"?
> > 
> > This is a huge red flag.  On the level of "I need your account
> > information to transfer $200M you might have inherited from my
> > deceased client".
> > 
> > Just to recap how it went the last time around: Kay kept pushing his
> > piece of code into the tree, claiming that it was optional, that
> > nobody who doesn't like it has to enable it, so what's the problem? 
> > OK, in it went.  And pretty soon udev (maintained by the same...
> > meticulously honorable person) had stopped working on the kernels
> > that didn't have that enabled.
> > 
> > We had been there before.  To paraphrase another... meticulously
> > honorable person, "if you didn't want something relied upon, why have
> > you put it into the kernel?" Said person is on the record as having
> > no problem whatsoever with adding dependencies to the bottom of
> > userland stack.
> 
> It appears that, if kdbus is merged, upstream udev may end up requiring
> it:
> 
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2014-May/019657.html
> 
> Grumble.

Honestly, I think that tightly coupling systemd and udev to certain kernel 
versions in lock step is crap.

That you require some minimum version after some reasonable time, sure. 
But in lockstep? Seriously.

I certainly do not want a broken system just cause I have to load an older 
kernel version for some reason.

And yes, I think its good not to force just about any userspace idea into 
the kernel.

-- 
Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de
GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA  B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7
--
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/