linux-kernel - Re: Follow-up on Linux-kernel code accessibility

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: <20251229191923.2bac0c50@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2025 19:19:23 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: "Theodore Tso" <tytso@....edu>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>, "Dr. David Alan Gilbert"
 <dave@...blig.org>, Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...ia.fr>, Sasha Levin
 <sashal@...nel.org>, Gabriele Paoloni <gpaoloni@...hat.com>, Kate Stewart
 <kstewart@...uxfoundation.org>, Chuck Wolber <chuckwolber@...il.com>,
 Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
 Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Lorenzo Stoakes
 <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>, Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>, Chris
 Mason <clm@...a.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Follow-up on Linux-kernel code accessibility

On Mon, 29 Dec 2025 18:50:10 -0500
"Theodore Tso" <tytso@....edu> wrote:

> Yes, it would be good if there were more than one person who can
> understand the details of the code and who can maintain it, so we
> don't have teh bus factor == 1 problem.  But the fact remains that are
> many parts of the kernel that I will freely admit that I have no
> *clue* how it work, and that's OK.  I'm sure if I spent a few weeks
> deeply meditating on the code, I could eventually figure it out ---
> but I don't have that kind of spare time.  Nor am I someone who is
> going to insist on a lot of documentation of internal details, since I
> happen to believe, like you, that accessibility to *users* of RCU is
> more important that people who are curious about the internal details
> about why we are dividing by 3, and not 4 (and 5 is right out) :-)

Do we care about reviewers? I keep hearing at every maintainer's summit and
what not that we don't have enough reviewers. Well if it takes weeks to sit
down and gork at code to be able to have a quality review, then yeah, we
are not going to have any reviewers. RCU is one of the core infrastructures
of the kernel. If it is wrong, then bad things can happen. I would think we
would want as many people as possible to be able to understand how it works.

I'm listed as one of the RCU reviewers because I spent a lot of time a few
years back trying very hard to understand all the code. But things have
changed a lot since I did that and when I go back now, I have no clue to how
the simplest things work there anymore and I give up.

I am Cc'd on a lot of the RCU code, and start looking at it when I can, but
it usually comes in batches of 10-40 patches at a time. I can look at 10, but
when it gets more than that, I simply don't have the time anymore to keep up.

I guess I should just remove my name as a reviewer.

-- Steve