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  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:   Sun, 14 Jun 2020 23:29:11 +0200
From:   Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To:     Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
Cc:     Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>, SeongJae Park <sjpark@...zon.com>,
        Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, 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

On Sat 2020-06-13 00:40:59, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> 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.

You do not understand how word "blacklist" is used inside the kernel,
do you? Do a quick grep.
									Pavel

-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (182 bytes)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists