linux-kernel - Re: Linux 6.2-rc1

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: <fd143218-d8ba-e6c5-9225-b8e2aee09979@kernel.dk>
Date:   Fri, 6 Jan 2023 10:04:47 -0700
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To:     Pali Rohár <pali@...nel.org>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Linux 6.2-rc1

On 1/6/23 9:58?AM, Pali Roh?r wrote:
> On Thursday 05 January 2023 13:33:11 Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 1/5/23 1:03?PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>> So nobody is going to be motivated to do any development in this area,
>>> and the best we can do is probably to just keep it limping along.
>>
>> Indeed...
> ...
>>> There's probably other cruft in pktcdvd that could be removed without
>>> removing the whole driver, but I do get the feeling that it's just
>>> less pain to keep the status quo, and that there isn't really much
>>> motivation for anybody to do anything else.
>>
>> I'm reluctant to touch it outside of changes that are driven by core
>> changes, and of course the motivation to remove it was driven by not
>> wanting to do that either. Any kind of re-architecting of how it works I
>> would not advocate for. It supposedly works well enough that none of the
>> (few) users are reporting issues with it, best to just let it remain
>> like that imho.
> 
> Yea, I agree. This code is in state when it is _used_ and not developed
> anymore. Nobody is really motivated to re-architecture or rewrite this
> code. Such work has big probability to break something which currently
> works fine. And because lot of users are on stable/LTS kernel versions,
> it is possible that we would not notice breakage earlier than (lets say)
> in 5 years.

I did sent out the revert this morning, would be great if you can test
6.2-rc3 when it is out. I'm a bit skeptical on the whole devnode front,
and suspect we might need to convert that to disk_name manipulation.
Which would be fine, as we can then drop the devnode reinstate revert as
well going forward. But I need to find a bit of time to look closer at
this part.

-- 
Jens Axboe