linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] Validating UAPI backwards compatibility

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: <ZArlx5wrw+ZQWUg4@infradead.org>
Date:   Fri, 10 Mar 2023 00:09:43 -0800
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:     John Moon <quic_johmoo@...cinc.com>
Cc:     Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
        Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        Nicolas Schier <nicolas@...sle.eu>,
        linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
        Todd Kjos <tkjos@...gle.com>,
        Matthias Maennich <maennich@...gle.com>,
        Giuliano Procida <gprocida@...gle.com>,
        kernel-team@...roid.com, libabigail@...rceware.org,
        Jordan Crouse <jorcrous@...zon.com>,
        Trilok Soni <quic_tsoni@...cinc.com>,
        Satya Durga Srinivasu Prabhala <quic_satyap@...cinc.com>,
        Elliot Berman <quic_eberman@...cinc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] Validating UAPI backwards compatibility

On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 11:54:00PM -0800, John Moon wrote:
> Our goal is to add tooling for vendor driver developers because the
> upstream model of expert maintainer code review can be difficult to
> replicate in-house. Tools may help developers catch simple UAPI
> incompatibilities that could be easily overlooked by in-house review.

Why would this matter in any way for the kernel?  If you tool is useful
for in-kernel usage it should be added to the tree and documented as
such, but ouf of tree crap simply does not matter.