linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] cifs/smb3 client fixes

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 14 Sep 2021 16:21:36 -0500
From:   Steve French <smfrench@...il.com>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        CIFS <linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org>,
        ronnie sahlberg <ronniesahlberg@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] cifs/smb3 client fixes

On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 1:06 PM Steve French <smfrench@...il.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 12:43 PM Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 10:09 AM Steve French <smfrench@...il.com> wrote:
<snip>
> > I'm ok with directory renames, git handles it all well enough that the
> > pain should be fairly minimal.
> >
> > I'd ask for that to be done during a fairly calm cycle, though, when
> > there isn't a lot pending, so that any rename conflicts will be
> > minimized.
<snip>
> > > Do you have any objections to me renaming the client's source
> > > directory to "fs/smb3" (or fs/smb) and fs/smb3_common ...?
> >
> > So no objections to the rename per se, but can we please use a more
> > specific name that is *not* tainted by history?
> >
> > I'll throw out two suggestions, but they are just that: (a) "smbfs" or
> > (b) "smb-client".

Due to git history for fs/smbfs directory (from many, many years ago) rename
to "fs/smbfs" could be more confusing. So alternative suggestion which
I implemented
was rename the source directory from fs/cifs to "fs/smbfs_client."  I
will send a P/R
for that since it is fairly quiet right now.  If you would prefer that
we wait for a future
release that is fine too, but seems like low risk now and might reduce
future confusion in
the future (to rename the source directory).