linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] libosd: Remove ignored _

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:   Fri, 26 Oct 2018 15:07:39 -0700
From:   Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
To:     bvanassche@....org, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     ooo@...ctrozaur.com, Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@...il.com>,
        "James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
        linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        hch@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] libosd: Remove ignored __weak attribute

On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 2:59 PM Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2018-10-26 at 14:36 -0700, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 2:30 PM Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, 2018-10-26 at 14:00 -0700, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 11:01 AM Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, 2018-10-26 at 10:54 -0700, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> > > > > > If creating one instance of this variable is a functional change, I
> > > > > > can't help but suspect the original code was wrong.  But maybe Bart,
> > > > > > Boaz, or Christoph can clarify or have more thoughts on this?  Looks
> > > > > > like Boaz added this header in commit de258bf5e638 ("[SCSI] libosd:
> > > > > > OSDv1 Headers").
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Nick and Nathan,
> > > > >
> > > > > Had you noticed the following e-mail from early October:
> > > > > https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=153849955503249?
> > > >
> > > > From this subthread with Linus, removal of the exofs fs and scsi osd
> > > > code would be a user visible change and is not an option. See:
> > > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/10/27/3
> > > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/10/27/44
> > >
> > > Hi Nick,
> > >
> > > Linus wrote that removing a filesystem is considered a userspace breakage
> > > if a user notices. The key part is "if a user notices". Who are the exofs
> > > users?
> >
> > See my thoughts on this in https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/10/27/27.
> > Particularly the part about the IMO catch 22.
> >
> > Neither you nor I can claim "there are none."
>
> That's not completely correct. The standard approach to check whether or not
> a driver is still being used is to check its git history. If the number of
> contributors is low and it was several years ago that a new feature was added
> or a bug has been fixed it is likely that nobody is using that driver anymore.
>
> Bart.
>

Bart,
I don't disagree with you, I just don't see how what you state can be
reconciled with Linus' response in
https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/10/27/44.  Those two viewpoints seem
incompatible to me, but maybe there's a nuance I'm missing?

Nathan and I are just pointing out a small fix to eliminate a small
warning, deleting all this code does kind of feels like "throwing out
the baby with the bath water." A nuclear option for what would be a
small change otherwise.  Maybe it's good to discuss the EOL for
exofs/osd, but can we please decouple that conversation from the small
change Nathan and I are proposing?
-- 
Thanks,
~Nick Desaulniers