linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] relay: Remove unused relay_late_setup

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: <aCGSYSDwDZiJmOtD@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 12 May 2025 09:17:05 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@...il.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, corbet@....net,
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux@...blig.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] relay: Remove unused relay_late_setup_files

On Mon, May 12, 2025 at 09:14:56AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, May 12, 2025 at 09:12:56AM +0800, Jason Xing wrote:
> > Hi All,
> > 
> > I noticed this patch "relay: Remove unused relay_late_setup_files"
> > appears in the mm branch already[1], which I totally missed. Sorry for
> > joining the party late.
> > 
> > I have a different opinion on this. For me, I'm very cautious about
> > what those so-called legacy interfaces are and how they can work in
> > different cases and what the use case might be... There are still a
> > small number of out-of-tree users like me heavily relying on relayfs
> > mechanism. So my humble opinion is that if you want to remove
> > so-called dead code, probably clearly state why it cannot be used
> > anymore in the future.
> > 
> > Dr. David, I appreciate your patch, but please do not simply do the
> > random cleanup work __here__. If you take a deep look at the relayfs,
> > you may find there are other interfaces/functions no one uses in the
> > kernel tree.
> > 
> > I'm now checking this kind of patch in relayfs one by one to avoid
> > such a thing happening. I'm trying to maintain it as much as possible
> > since we internally use it in the networking area to output useful
> > information in the hot paths, a little bit like blktrace. BTW, relayfs
> > is really a wonderful one that helps kernel modules communicate with
> > userspace very efficiently. I'm trying to revive it if I can.
> 
> Jason, with all of the respect, if you are interested in keeping things going
> on, please add yourself to the MAINTAINERS. It will makes the users of the
> legacy code, Andrew and others, who are doing maintainer's/reviewer's job,
> and you happy.
> 
> Also note, we usually do not care about the out-of-tree users. The main Q here
> why are they out-of-tree for so long time?
> 
> > [1]: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/akpm/mm.git/commit/?h=mm-everything&id=46aa76118ee365c25911806e34d28fc2aa5ef997

With the above being said, I am +1 for the patch to stay. Feel free to send
a revert with a good justification of why it should stay. Note, out-of-tree
is not enough argument.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko