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 10:44:40 +0200
From:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
	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 09:53:36PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 09:48:04PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > 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.)
> 
> Until it is made "mandatory" as Al said earlier.

If you really don't like userspace using features the kernel provides
you, well, there's nothing I can say that will change that odd feeling,
sorry.

If we don't want to make the metadata thing optional because everyone
will end up always using it, great, we will go make that change, that's
not an issue at all.  It will then end up looking like the first
proposal that was made many months ago :)

> > 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.
> 
> We trust? I'm not going to even comment on that.

Really?  Who in that MAINTAINERS file entry do you not trust?
Seriously, if that's the issue here, please let me know.  Do you not
trust me?  Daniel?  David?  Djalal?  All of us have been long-time
kernel developers and maintainers of other portions of the kernel stack
that you rely on every day.  If you have objections to any of us
maintaining this code, let me know.  Otherwise, stop making foolish
statements.

> And frankly, merging a useful piece of code sounds completely different
> to me than this serious backlash I'm reading from the sidelines.

I don't understand what this means.  If you have a technical reason for
why this code shouldn't be merged, great, please let me know and we can
work to address that.  Andy and Al have spent time reviewing and giving
us comments, and that's wonderful and valuable and is why I treat their
comments seriously.  If you are interested in the code, please review
it, otherwise I don't see what this adds to the conversation at all, do
you?

thanks,

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/