linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] smb3 client fixes

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAH2r5mtFMbQ_RPghL+=J67o9ABYe3xnsS3tTRkymK7r13Y3Hbw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2025 11:12:37 -0500
From: Steve French <smfrench@...il.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, CIFS <linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] smb3 client fixes

Understood, have resent the P/R without it, and will try to be more
careful about this kind of thing in the future.

On Sat, Jun 21, 2025 at 11:09 AM Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 21 Jun 2025 at 09:00, Steve French <smfrench@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > I can remove that and resend, handling special files properly can be
> > important (and there is a much more important patch being reviewed for
> > fixing some symlink corner cases) but SMB1 is much lower priority.
>
> So honestly, if you had explained it as such, I would have taken a
> look and gone "Ok, I don't care, this area hasn't been a problem".
>
> But instead, it was sold as fixes, and I went "that looks odd". So I
> had to go explore, and decided that it looked decidedly like new
> development.
>
> End result: now there is no way in hell that I'm pulling that thing.
>
> Trying to sneak things in is not ok. Claiming things are "fixes" when
> they aren't, and me having to figure that out just makes me unhappy.
>
> Just be honest about these things.
>
> Sure, I don't always check, because smb hasn't been a problem, and
> maybe you've done this hundreds of times before.
>
> But that's also exactly the problem: now I feel like I can't trust
> your explanations because they seem to be whitewashing what is
> actually going on.
>
> So instead of a "let it go", it's now a "I guess I will have to waste
> time on these things because I feel like I have to double-check what
> Steve sends me".
>
> Which is what neither of us wants, but here we are.
>
>             Linus



-- 
Thanks,

Steve