linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v0.1 0/9] UMCG early preview/RFC patchset

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: <87h7io421f.fsf@meer.lwn.net>
Date:   Thu, 27 May 2021 09:41:32 -0600
From:   Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
To:     Peter Oskolkov <posk@...gle.com>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-api <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>, Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
        Peter Oskolkov <posk@...k.io>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Andrei Vagin <avagin@...gle.com>,
        Jim Newsome <jnewsome@...project.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v0.1 0/9] UMCG early preview/RFC patchset

Peter Oskolkov <posk@...gle.com> writes:

> I've pasted below the content of umcg.rst file that I'll add as a doc
> patch to the next version of the patchset. I've also attached a PDF
> version of the file rendered, in case it is useful. I also think that
> it is a bit early for manpages - I expect the API and/or behavior to
> change quite a bit before this is all merged. I'm also not completely
> sure whether the manpages should describe the "porcelain API" or the
> "plumbing API" (see the .rst below).
>
> Please let me know if you have any questions, comments, or suggestions.

So this is very helpful, thanks.  I've been through it once, and have
some overall comments.

 - Parts of it read more like a requirements document.  A document going
   into the kernel should describe what the code actually does, not what
   we think it should be.

 - I would make a serious effort to get a handle on the terminology.
   The term "kernel thread" has a meaning other than the one you give
   it; saying "kernel thread" here will lead to a lot of confusion.  I
   hesitate to suggest terms because I'm terrible at naming (just ask my
   kids), but I would pick clear and concise names for your "server
   threads" and "worker threads", then stick to them.

 - The library documentation is good to have, but it will really be
   necessary to document the system calls as well.  *That* is the part
   that the kernel community will have to support forever if this is
   merged.

Thanks,

jon