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:	Wed, 15 Apr 2015 10:29:51 +0200
From:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc:	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	"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

On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 06:36:28PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> 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

Why would anyone propose a kernel api if they didn't actually plan to
use it?  Look at the first email in this thread, it shows the
people/projects that want to use this.  This is a crazy argument to try
to make people, "stop using the feature that the kernel provides you!"

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/