linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v9 for 4.15 01/14] Restartable sequences system call

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+55aFwvNS95ByZJTh1yG25QfaD0K0ZByK3iXeeRU8LafFiGFQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 13 Oct 2017 14:05:50 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     Ben Maurer <bmaurer@...com>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
        David Goldblatt <davidgoldblatt@...com>,
        Qi Wang <qiwang@...com>, Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>, Andrew Hunter <ahh@...gle.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
        Dave Watson <davejwatson@...com>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, Chris Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v9 for 4.15 01/14] Restartable sequences system call

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 1:54 PM, Paul E. McKenney
<paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>>
>> And if nobody can be bothered to write the user-level code and test
>> this patch-series, then obviously it's not important enough for the
>> kernel to merge it.
>
> My guess is that it will take some time, probably measured in months,
> to carry out this level of integration and testing to.

That would be an argument if this was a new patch series. "Wait a few months".

But that just isn't the case here.

The fact is, these patches have been floating around in one form or
another not for a couple of months, but for years. There's a LWN
article about it from 2015, and it wasn't new back then either (slides
from 2013).

I wouldn't be surprised if there had been academic _papers_ written
about the notion.

So if there  *still* is no actual real code around this, then that
just strengthens my point - no way should we merge something where
people haven't actually bothered to write the user-mode component for
years and years.

It really boils down to: "if nobody can be bothered to write the user
mode parts after several years, why should it be merged into the
kernel"?

I don't think that's too much to ask for.

                Linus