linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] Block pull request for- 4.11-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: <CA+55aFwXmBsHBPJJLzxnY0H4ib-iro__TdYA6=rpUnoh+BbyGA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 22 Feb 2017 10:42:19 -0800
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc:     "linux-block@...r.kernel.org" <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Block pull request for- 4.11-rc1

On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 10:26 AM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> And dammit, IF YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW, WHY THE HELL ARE YOU ASKING THE POOR USER?

Basically, I'm pushing back on config options that I can't personally
even sanely answer.

If it's a config option about "do I have a particular piece of
hardware", it makes sense. But these new ones were just complete
garbage.

The whole "default IO scheduler" thing is a disease. We should stop
making up these shit schedulers and then say "we don't know which one
works best for you".

All it does is encourage developers to make shortcuts and create crap
that isn't generically useful, and then blame the user and say "well,
you should have picked a different scheduler" when they say "this does
not work well for me".

We have had too many of those kinds of broken choices.  And when the
new Kconfig options get so confusing and so esoteric that I go "Hmm, I
have no idea if my hardware does a single queue or not", I put my foot
down.

When the IO scheduler questions were about a generic IO scheduler for
everything, I can kind of understand them. I think it was still a
mistake (for the reasons outline above), but at least it was a
comprehensible question to ask.

But when it gets to "what should I do about a single-queue version of
a MQ scheduler", the question is no longer even remotely sensible. The
question should simply NOT EXIST. There is no possible valid reason to
ask that kind of crap.

               Linus