linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 00/13] "Task

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: <20200723142902.GT5523@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Thu, 23 Jul 2020 16:29:02 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     Alex Belits <abelits@...vell.com>,
        "frederic@...nel.org" <frederic@...nel.org>,
        "rostedt@...dmis.org" <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Prasun Kapoor <pkapoor@...vell.com>,
        "mingo@...nel.org" <mingo@...nel.org>,
        "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "linux-api@...r.kernel.org" <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        "catalin.marinas@....com" <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        "will@...nel.org" <will@...nel.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/13] "Task_isolation" mode

On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 03:17:04PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>   8) Changelogs
> 
>      Most of the changelogs have something along the lines:
> 
>      'task isolation does not want X, so do Y to make it not do X'
> 
>      without any single line of explanation why this approach was chosen
>      and why it is correct under all circumstances and cannot have nasty
>      side effects.
> 
>      It's not the job of the reviewers/maintainers to figure this out.
> 
> Please come up with a coherent design first and then address the
> identified issues one by one in a way which is palatable and reviewable.
> 
> Throwing a big pile of completely undocumented 'works for me' mess over
> the fence does not get you anywhere, not even to the point that people
> are willing to review it in detail.

This.. as presented it is an absolutely unreviewable pile of junk. It
presents code witout any coherent problem description and analysis. And
the patches are not split sanely either.