[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200507233634.GA367616@optiplex-lnx>
Date: Thu, 7 May 2020 19:36:34 -0400
From: Rafael Aquini <aquini@...hat.com>
To: Qian Cai <cai@....pw>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
kexec@...ts.infradead.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
dyoung@...hat.com, Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel: add panic_on_taint
On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 07:07:20PM -0400, Qian Cai wrote:
>
>
> > On May 7, 2020, at 6:15 PM, Rafael Aquini <aquini@...hat.com> wrote:
> >
> > It's a reasonable and self-contained feature that we have a valid use for.
> > I honestly fail to see it causing that amount of annoyance as you are
> > suggesting here.
>
> It is not a big trouble yet, but keeping an obsolete patch that not very straightforward to figure out that it will be superseded by the panic_on_taint patch will only cause more confusion the longer it has stayed in linux-next.
>
> The thing is that even if you can’t get this panic_on_taint (the superior solution) patch accepted for some reasons, someone else could still work on it until it get merged.
>
> Thus, I failed to see any possibility we will go back to the inferior solution (mm-slub-add-panic_on_error-to-the-debug-facilities.patch) by all means.
>
There are plenty of examples of things being added, changed, and
removed in -next. IOW, living in a transient state. I think it's
a reasonable compromise to keep it while the other one is beind
ironed out.
The fact that you prefer one solution to another doesn't
invalidate the one you dislike.
Cheers,
-- Rafael
Powered by blists - more mailing lists