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]

Date:   Thu, 04 Aug 2022 15:03:23 -0400
From:   Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>
To:     Enzo Matsumiya <ematsumiya@...e.de>, Tom Talpey <tom@...pey.com>
Cc:     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 Tue, 2022-08-02 at 22:56 -0300, Enzo Matsumiya wrote:
> 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.
> > 

This is a great technical goal. Splitting up cifs.ko into smaller
modules would be great, in addition to being able to turn off smb1
support.

> > 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.
> 
> 

Cool. I'm not even really opposed to moving the directory to a new one,
but I think a change of that magnitude ought to have some clear
technical benefit. Maybe it'll look more palatable once the breakup into
multiple modules is in place.

-- 
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>