linux-kernel - Re: [Tech-board-discuss] [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH] CodingStyle: Inclusive Terminology

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]

Message-ID: <0a7dd50b-b4b3-d9fa-dbb0-8c30d522b945@infradead.org>
Date:   Sat, 4 Jul 2020 19:44:30 -0700
From:   Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy6545@...il.com>
Cc:     Dave Airlie <airlied@...il.com>,
        ksummit <ksummit-discuss@...ts.linuxfoundation.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        tech-board-discuss@...ts.linuxfoundation.org,
        Chris Mason <clm@...clm>
Subject: Re: [Tech-board-discuss] [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH] CodingStyle:
 Inclusive Terminology

On 7/4/20 6:10 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 04, 2020 at 08:10:33PM -0400, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>> Left-right tree makes no sense. It doesn't distinguish the rbtree from its
>> predecessor the avl tree.  I don't think it's helpful to rename a standard
>> piece of computing terminology unless it's actually hurting us to have it.
>> Obviously if it were called a "master-slave" tree, I would be in favour of
>> renaming it.
> 
> (No one has suggested renaming red/black trees, so I think the
> slippery-slope argument can be set aside here.)

Did you read this message?

https://lore.kernel.org/ksummit-discuss/CAPM=9ty0tiL_qM_UFv0S0VtARKz_f-Anngc+amDM5LjGAHazhA@mail.gmail.com/

> As for the actual proposal on white/black-list, I've always been annoyed
> by the poor description it provides (and I get to see it A LOT being
> the seccomp maintainer). I welcome allow/deny-list (though the change is
> not new for seccomp -- the man pages were updated last year (thanks
> mkerrisk). :)
> 


-- 
~Randy