linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v12 00/26] LUF(Lazy Unmap Flush) reducing tlb numbers over 90%

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: <sidjvovjq4erirlld46qostxcycju6ytm3ptvvcapvhd3lhbh3@6oktathem55a>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2025 18:21:56 -0500
From: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>, 
	Byungchul Park <byungchul@...com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, 
	kernel_team@...ynix.com, conduct@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v12 00/26] LUF(Lazy Unmap Flush) reducing tlb numbers
 over 90%

On Thu, Feb 20, 2025 at 06:05:39PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 17:53:41 -0500
> Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev> wrote:
> 
> > > I'll tell you what would happen in my home town. If someone said
> > > that to a co-worker, they would likely be terminated.  
> > 
> > I can't agree with the "this is a firing offence" approach.
> 
> My point was, if this was in a company, it could very well be a firing offense.

Well, to a white color worker, yes. But to someone working a blue collor
safety critical industry, that's going to come across as rather tame.

(And I do get annoyed when people get overly focused on language and
forget that _we_ are a safety critical industry. To a first
approximation, all the critical infrastructure throughout the world runs
on Linux, stuff that doesn't is a rounding error, and all the testing
and validation that exists only provides a safety factor. We have to
have our shit together, and that does need to come first).

That aside - my point isn't about what should and shouldn't be allowed,
it's just that norms are arbitrary and it's not the best argument if you
want someone to change their behavior.

> > We're a community, no one is employed by anyone else here; we work
> > together because we have to and we have to figure out how to get along.
> > We work via consensus, not appeals to authority.
> 
> As a community, yes, things are different. But we should not have to
> tolerate such language.

Agreed.

And I think we're all aware at this point at how that sort of thing does
drive people away, so best not take it so far people start to consider
you a liability - or one way or another there's going to be an "or else".

This place functions by making people feel respected and valued for the
work they do, so a degree of respect and consideration is required.