linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] namespacefs: Proof-of-Concept

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]

Date:   Thu, 18 Nov 2021 14:02:11 -0500
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
Cc:     "Yordan Karadzhov \(VMware\)" <y.karadz@...il.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, mingo@...hat.com, hagen@...u.net,
        rppt@...nel.org, James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, vvs@...tuozzo.com, shakeelb@...gle.com,
        christian.brauner@...ntu.com, mkoutny@...e.com,
        Linux Containers <containers@...ts.linux.dev>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] namespacefs: Proof-of-Concept

On Thu, 18 Nov 2021 12:55:07 -0600
ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman) wrote:

> Nacked-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
> 
> Eric

Eric, 

As you can see, the subject says "Proof-of-Concept" and every patch in the
the series says "RFC". All you did was point out problems with no help in
fixing those problems, and then gave a nasty Nacked-by before it even got
into a conversation.

>From this response, I have to say:

  It is not correct to nack a proof of concept that is asking for
  discussion.

So, I nack your nack, because it's way to early to nack this.

-- Steve