netdev - Re: [PATCH] net/smc: mark as BROKEN due to remote memory exposure

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: <1494952963.3259.109.camel@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 16 May 2017 12:42:43 -0400
From:   Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:     Bart.VanAssche@...disk.com, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
        hch@....de, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
        stable@...r.kernel.org, ubraun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net/smc: mark as BROKEN due to remote memory exposure

On Tue, 2017-05-16 at 12:29 -0400, David Miller wrote:
> From: Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>
> Date: Tue, 16 May 2017 11:57:04 -0400
> 
> > Regardless though, I'm rather purturbed about this entire thing.
>  If
> > you are right that because this got into 4.11, it's now a done
> deal,
> > then the fact that this went through 4 review cycles on netdev@
> that,
> > as I understand it, spanned roughly one years time, and not one
> single
> > person bothered to note that this was as much an RDMA driver as
> > anything else, and not one person bothered to note that linux-rdma@ 
> was
> > not on the Cc: list, and not one person told the submitters that
> they
> > needed to include linux-rdma@ on the Cc: list of these submissions,
> and
> > you took it without any review comments from any RDMA people in the
> > course of a year, or an ack from me to show that the RDMA portion
> of
> > this had at least been given some sort of review, was a collosal
> fuckup
> > of cross tree maintainer cooperation.
> 
> We rely on people from various areas of expertiece to contribute to
> patch review on netdev and give appropriate feedback.
> 
> If you actually look through the history, I made many semantic
> reviews
> of the SMC changes, and kept pushing back.
> 
> And in fact I did this several times, making them go through several
> revisions, in the hopes that someone would review more of the meat
> and
> substance of the patch set.

If you want to walk to the mailbox, you walk to the mailbox, you don't
walk to the grocery store, to the gym, and never even go to the
mailbox.  Likewise, if you want review from RDMA experts, most (maybe
even all) don't subscribe to netdev@ because it's too high traffic, you
don't waste time on silly semantic pushbacks, you send a single email
that says "Please get review from linux-rdma@, thank you."  Don't beat
around the bush, be direct and get it over with.  That's exactly what I
do for all netdev@ related patches coming to linux-rdma@ without a
proper Cc: to netdev@.

> Nobody do this for over a year.
> 
> I can't push back on people with silly coding style and small
> semantic
> issues forever.  And I think I made a serious effort to keep the
> patches getting posted over and over again to make sure they got more
> exposure.
> 
> I think it's unsettling that there are no RDMA experts, or at least
> people remotely knowledgable about this "networking" technology,
> subscribed to netdev and taking a cursory look at pactches that might
> be relevant and effect that technology either directly or indirectly.
> 
> So there is a lot of blame to go around.

Fine, allocate blame however, you like.  What I want to actually settle
is how we are going to move forward.  You didn't respond to that part
of my email.  Your thoughts?

-- 
Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>
    GPG KeyID: B826A3330E572FDD
   
Key fingerprint = AE6B 1BDA 122B 23B4 265B  1274 B826 A333 0E57 2FDD