linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/3] Add testable code specifications

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: <2025102211-wolverine-cradling-b4ec@gregkh>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2025 19:13:19 +0200
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Gabriele Paoloni <gpaoloni@...hat.com>
Cc: shuah@...nel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, corbet@....net,
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	safety-architecture@...ts.elisa.tech, acarmina@...hat.com,
	kstewart@...uxfoundation.org, chuckwolber@...il.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/3] Add testable code specifications

On Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 04:06:10PM +0200, Gabriele Paoloni wrote:
> > Every in-kernel api documented in a "formal" way like this?  Or a
> > subset?  If a subset, which ones specifically?  How many?  And who is
> > going to do that?  And who is going to maintain it?  And most
> > importantly, why is it needed at all?
> >
> > For some reason Linux has succeeded in pretty much every place an
> > operating system is needed for cpus that it can run on (zephyr for those
> > others that it can not.)  So why are we suddenly now, after many
> > decades, requiring basic user/kernel stuff to be formally documented
> > like this?
> 
> Let me try to answer starting from the "why".

Let's ignore the "why" for now, and get to the "how" and "what" which
you skipped from my questions above.

_Exactly_ how many in-kernel functions are you claiming is needed to be
documented in this type of way before Linux would become "acceptable" to
these regulatory agencies, and which ones _specifically_ are they?

Without knowing that, we could argue about the format all day long, and
yet have nothing to show for it.

And then, I have to ask, exactly "who" is going to do that work.

I'll point at another "you must do this for reasons" type of request we
have had in the past, SPDX.  Sadly that task was never actually finished
as it looks like no one really cared to do the real work involved.  We
got other benefits out of that effort, but the "goal" that people
started that effort with was never met.  Part of that is me not pushing
back hard enough on the "who is going to do the work" part of that
question, which is important in stuff like this.

If you never complete the effort, your end goal of passing Linux off to
those customers will never happen.

So, try to answer that, with lots and lots of specifics, and then, if we
agree that it is a sane thing to attempt (i.e. you are going to do all
the work and it actually would be possible to complete), then we can
argue about the format of the text :)

thanks,

greg k-h