linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ocfs2: reduce ioctl stack usage

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: <20230420-wetten-aneignen-8324959e629d@brauner>
Date:   Thu, 20 Apr 2023 11:34:13 +0200
From:   Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Joseph Qi <joseph.qi@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        Mark Fasheh <mark@...heh.com>,
        Joel Becker <jlbec@...lplan.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        ocfs2-devel <ocfs2-devel@....oracle.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ocfs2: reduce ioctl stack usage

On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 02:21:59PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Apr 2023 10:00:15 +0800 Joseph Qi <joseph.qi@...ux.alibaba.com> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > 
> > On 4/18/23 8:56 PM, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 05:37:06PM +0800, Joseph Qi wrote:
> > >> Andrew picked ocfs2 patches into -mm tree before.
> > > Yup and that's fine obviously, but this belongs to fs/ and we're aiming
> > > to take fs/ stuff through the dedicated fs trees going forward.
> > 
> > Either is fine for me.
> > Hi Andrew, what's your opinion?
> 
> I've been wrangling ocfs2 for over a decade and this is the first I've
> heard of this proposal.
> 
> Who is "we", above?  What was their reasoning?
> 
> Who will be responsible for ocfs2 patches?  What will be their workflow
> and review and test processes?
> 
> Overall, what benefit does this proposal offer the ocfs2 project?

I think I might not have communicated as clearly as I should have.
Simply because I naively assumed that this is unproblematic.

By "we" I mean people responsible for "fs/" which now happens to also
include me. So the goal of this is for patches falling under fs/ to get
picked up more quickly and broadly and share the maintenance burden.

Since ocfs2 falls under fs/ it felt pretty straightforward that it
should go via one of the fs/ trees and thus I picked it up and didn't
bat an eye that it might somehow bother you.

For us as in "fs/" it's nicer because it means if we do fs wide changes
we'll reduce chances of merge conflicts.