linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 5/5] sbm: SandBox Mode documentation

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: <2024021534-antibody-routing-466e@gregkh>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2024 12:39:17 +0100
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Petr Tesařík <petr@...arici.cz>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Petr Tesarik <petrtesarik@...weicloud.com>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
	David Kaplan <david.kaplan@....com>,
	Larry Dewey <larry.dewey@....com>,
	Elena Reshetova <elena.reshetova@...el.com>,
	Carlos Bilbao <carlos.bilbao@....com>,
	"Masami Hiramatsu (Google)" <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
	Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
	Eric DeVolder <eric.devolder@...cle.com>,
	Marc Aurèle La France <tsi@...oix.net>,
	"Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>,
	Nhat Pham <nphamcs@...il.com>,
	"Christian Brauner (Microsoft)" <brauner@...nel.org>,
	Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
	Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
	Guenter Roeck <groeck@...omium.org>,
	Mike Christie <michael.christie@...cle.com>,
	Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>,
	Maninder Singh <maninder1.s@...sung.com>,
	"open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
	open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@...weicloud.com>,
	Petr Tesarik <petr.tesarik1@...wei-partners.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 5/5] sbm: SandBox Mode documentation

On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 10:45:15AM +0100, Petr Tesařík wrote:
> As a matter of fact, hpa does not like the x86 implementation. For
> reasons that I do not fully understand (yet), but if the concept turns
> out to be impractical, then my submission will serve a purpose, as I
> can save myself (and anybody else with a similar idea) a lot of work by
> failing fast.
> 
> Is this a valid way to get early feedback?

Asking for feedback is one thing (that's what RFC is for, right?), but
submitting something and expecting us to review and accept it as-is like
this, just doesn't work well.

thanks,

greg k-h