linux-kernel - Re: About the try to remove cross-release feature entirely by Ingo

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: <CANrsvRP8hHUJZAYUnJ5Vbu79O+HRrWfWou=Q0stRiLO9SaidCw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 14 Dec 2017 22:30:24 +0900
From:   Byungchul Park <max.byungchul.park@...il.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, david@...morbit.com,
        willy@...radead.org,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>, byungchul.park@....com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        oleg@...hat.com
Subject: Re: About the try to remove cross-release feature entirely by Ingo

On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 8:18 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 10:07:11PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
>> interpreted this as the lockdep maintainers saying, "hey, not my
>> fault, it's the subsystem maintainer's fault for not properly
>> classifying the locks" --- and thus dumping the responsibility in the
>> subsystem maintainers' laps.
>
> Let me clarify that I (as lockdep maintainer) disagree with that
> sentiment. I have spend a lot of time over the years staring at random
> code trying to fix lockdep splats. Its awesome if corresponding
> subsystem maintainers help out and many have, but I very much do not
> agree its their problem and their problem alone.

I apologize to all of you. That's really not what I intended to say.

I said that other folks can annotate it for the sub-system better
than lockdep developer, so suggested to invalidate locks making
trouble and wanting to avoid annotating it at the moment, and
validate those back when necessary with additional annotations.

It's my fault. I'm not sure how I should express what I want to say,
but, I didn't intend to charge the responsibility to other folks.

Ideally, I think it's best to solve it with co-work. I should've been
more careful to say that.

Again, I apologize for that, to lockdep and fs maintainers.

Of course, for cross-release, I have the will to annotate it or
find a better way to avoid false positives. And I think I have to.

-- 
Thanks,
Byungchul