linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] Rename "cifs" module to "smbfs"

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: <20220803015655.7u5b6i4eo5sfnryb@cyberdelia>
Date:   Tue, 2 Aug 2022 22:56:55 -0300
From:   Enzo Matsumiya <ematsumiya@...e.de>
To:     Tom Talpey <tom@...pey.com>
Cc:     Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>, linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org,
        smfrench@...il.com, pc@....nz, ronniesahlberg@...il.com,
        nspmangalore@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, samba-technical@...ts.samba.org,
        pshilovsky@...ba.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] Rename "cifs" module to "smbfs"

On 08/02, Tom Talpey wrote:
>The initial goal is to modularize the SMB1 code, so it can be completely
>removed from a running system. The extensive refactoring logically leads
>to this directory renaming, but renaming is basically a side effect.
>
>Stamping out the four-letter word C-I-F-S is a secondary goal. At this
>point, the industry has stopped using it. You make a good point that
>it's still visible outside the kernel source though.
>
>It makes good sense to do the refactoring in place, at first. Splitting
>the {smb1,cifs}*.[ch] files will be more complex, but maybe easier to
>review and merge, without folding in a new directory tree and git rm/mv.
>Either way, there will be at least two modules, maybe three if we split
>out generic subroutines.
>
>Enzo, you're up to your elbows in this code now, is it too ugly without
>the new directories?

Having things in separate directories and code appropriately distributed
in coherently named headers/sources certainly makes things easier to
work with.

Of course this patch is not important, by far, but from what I
gathered, it was some people's wish to move away from "cifs" name.

Answering your question (IIUC), Tom, I'm ok with postponing this change.

>Tom.

Cheers,

Enzo