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  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:   Tue, 16 Jun 2020 18:59:58 +0100
From:   Chris Boot <>
To:     James Bottomley <>,
        Johannes Thumshirn <>,
        Bart Van Assche <>,
        Finn Thain <>
Cc:     "" <>,
        "" <>,
        "" <>,
        "" <>,
        Chuhong Yuan <>,
        "Martin K . Petersen" <>,
        Nicholas Bellinger <>,
        Stefan Richter <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scsi: target/sbp: remove firewire SBP target driver

On 16/06/2020 16:34, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Tue, 2020-06-16 at 14:13 +0000, Johannes Thumshirn wrote:
>> On 16/06/2020 16:09, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>>> On 2020-06-16 02:42, Finn Thain wrote:
>>>> Martin said, "I'd appreciate a patch to remove it"
>>>> And Bart said, "do you want to keep this driver in the kernel
>>>> tree?"
>>>> AFAICT both comments are quite ambiguous. I don't see an
>>>> actionable request, just an expression of interest from people
>>>> doing their jobs.
>>>> Note well: there is no pay check associated with having a
>>>> MAINTAINERS file 
>>>> entry.
>>> Hi Finn,
>>> As far as I know the sbp driver only has had one user ever and that
>>> user is no longer user the sbp driver. So why to keep it in the
>>> kernel tree? Restoring a kernel driver can be easy - the first step
>>> is a "git revert".
>> Why not move the driver to drivers/staging for 2 or 3 kernel releases
>> and if noone steps up, delete it?
> Because that's pretty much the worst of all worlds: If the driver is
> simply going orphaned it can stay where it is to avoid confusion.  If
> it's being removed, it's better to remove it from where it is because
> that makes the patch to restore it easy to find.
> Chris, the thing is this: if this driver has just one user on a stable
> distro who complains about its removal six months to two years from
> now, Linus will descend on us from a great height (which won't matter
> to you, since you'll be long gone).  This makes everyone very wary of
> outright removal.  If you're really, really sure it has no users, it
> can be deleted, but if there's the slightest chance it has just one, it
> should get orphaned.

My patch to delete the driver was based on Martin's original request:

I don't especially want it to be gone, nor can I be sure there are no
users of what is as far as I can tell a working piece of code. I can
tell you that I never hear about it (other than the odd patch), whereas
I do get emails out of the blue for some of my other (much smaller)
stuff which clearly has users. I'd be just as happy for this to be
orphaned or for nothing to happen to it.

Honestly, I am totally ambivalent as to what happens to this code.
Martin, however, clearly cares enough to have asked me to supply a patch
to remove it.


Chris Boot

Powered by blists - more mailing lists