linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 0/4] mm/userfaultfd: modulize memory types

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: <aQPU-tyo_w68cnKK@x1.local>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2025 17:13:30 -0400
From: Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
To: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>
Cc: "Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>,
	David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>,
	Muchun Song <muchun.song@...ux.dev>,
	Nikita Kalyazin <kalyazin@...zon.com>,
	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
	Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@...gle.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	James Houghton <jthoughton@...gle.com>,
	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
	Ujwal Kundur <ujwal.kundur@...il.com>,
	Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>,
	Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>, conduct@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/4] mm/userfaultfd: modulize memory types

On Thu, Oct 30, 2025 at 08:23:03PM +0000, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> +cc CoC
> 
> Peter,
> 
> I'm sorry but your reply here is completely out of line.
> 
> I know tensions can run high sometimes, but this is a _good faith_ effort to try
> to find a way forward.
> 
> Please take a step back and show some respect for the fact that Liam has put
> VERY significant effort in preparing this after you _repeatedly_ asked him to
> show him code.
> 
> I am starting to worry that your approach here is to bat off criticism by trying
> to wear reviewers down and that's really not a good thing.
> 
> Again, this is _good faith_. Nobody is trying to unreasonably push back on these
> changes, we are just trying to find the best solution possible.
> 
> Comments like:
> 
> 'Your code allows to operate on pmd* in a module??? That's too risky and mm can
> explode!  Isn't it?'
> 
> and 'that's the wrong way to go. I explained to you multiple times.'
> 
> and 'I'm pretty sure my code introduce zero or very little bug, if there's one, I'll
> fix it, but really, likely not, because the changes are straightforward.'
> 
> vs. 'Your changes are huge.  I would not be surprised you break things here and
> there.  I hope at least you will be around fixing them when it happens, even if
> we're not sure the benefits of most of the changes.'
> 
> are just _entirely_ unhelpful and really unacceptable.
> 
> I have an extremely heavy workload at the moment anyway, but honestly
> interactions like this have seriously put me off being involved in this review
> personally.
> 
> Do we really want this to be how review in mm or the kernel is?
> 
> Is that really the culture we want to have here?

Gosh.. Seriously?

I'm ok if this needs to be audited.  I have all the previous discussions in
the cover letter as links.

-- 
Peter Xu