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:   Sat, 13 Jun 2020 00:40:59 +1000
From:   Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
To:     Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>, SeongJae Park <sjpark@...zon.com>,
        Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc:     akpm@...ux-foundation.org, apw@...onical.com,
        SeongJae Park <sjpark@...zon.de>, colin.king@...onical.com,
        sj38.park@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/2] Recommend denylist/allowlist instead of blacklist/whitelist

Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz> writes:
> On 11. 06. 20, 9:38, SeongJae Park wrote:
>> On Wed, 10 Jun 2020 23:35:24 -0700 Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2020-06-11 at 08:25 +0200, SeongJae Park wrote:
>>>> From: SeongJae Park <sjpark@...zon.de>
>>>>
>>>> This patchset 1) adds support of deprecated terms in the 'checkpatch.pl'
>>>> and 2) set the 'blacklist' and 'whitelist' as deprecated with
>>>> replacement suggestion of 'denylist' and 'allowlist', because the
>>>> suggestions are incontrovertible, doesn't make people hurt, and more
>>>> self-explanatory.
>>>
>>> While the checkpatch implementation is better,
>>> I'm still very "meh" about the whole concept.
>> 
>> I can understand your concerns about politic things in the second patch.
>> However, the concept of the 'deprecated terms' in the first patch is not
>> political but applicable to the general cases.  We already had the commits[1]
>> for a similar case.  So, could you ack for at least the first patch?
>> 
>> [1] https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Linux-Kernel-Hugs
>
> Fuck you! replaced by hug you! is a completely different story. The
> former is indeed offending to majority (despite it's quite common to
> tell someone "fuck you" in my subregion; OTOH hugging, no way -- I'm a
> straight non-communist). If it turns out that any word (e.g. blacklist)
> offends _majority_ (or at least a significant part of it) of some
> minority or culture, then sure, we should send it to /dev/null.
> should by no means listen to extreme individuals.

I agree you have to draw the line somewhere, there will always be
someone somewhere that's offended by something. But this seems like a
pretty easy case.

It's not like blacklist / whitelist are even good to begin with, it's
not obvious which is which, you have to learn that black is bad and
white is good.

Blocklist (or denylist?) and allowlist are actually more descriptive and
less likely to cause confusion.

cheers

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ