netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC 00/15] Zero ****s, hugload of hugs <3

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: <1543616788.3031.38.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
Date:   Fri, 30 Nov 2018 14:26:28 -0800
From:   James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
To:     Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Daniel Axtens <dja@...ens.net>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Dominik Brodowski <linux@...inikbrodowski.net>,
        Maling list - DRI developers 
        <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, federico.vaga@...a.pv.it,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
        Helge Deller <deller@....de>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Joshua Kinard <kumba@...too.org>,
        "open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org,
        Linux Media Mailing List <linux-media@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux MIPS Mailing List <linux-mips@...ux-mips.org>,
        Linux mtd <linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>,
        linux-parisc <linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, matthias.bgg@...il.com,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        nouveau <nouveau@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Paul Burton <paul.burton@...s.com>,
        Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
        sean.wang@...iatek.com,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
        shannon.nelson@...cle.com, Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@...hat.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        "Tobin C. Harding" <me@...in.cc>, makita.toshiaki@....ntt.co.jp,
        Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>,
        Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>, yanjun.zhu@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 00/15] Zero ****s, hugload of hugs <3

On Fri, 2018-11-30 at 14:12 -0800, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
[...]
> I pasted this already to another response and this was probably the
> part that ignited me to send the patch set (was a few days ago, so
> had to revisit to find the exact paragraph):

I replied in to the other thread.

> "Maintainers have the right and responsibility to remove, edit, or
> reject comments, commits, code, wiki edits, issues, and other
> contributions that are not aligned to this Code of Conduct, or to ban
> temporarily or permanently any contributor for other behaviors that
> they deem inappropriate, threatening, offensive, or harmful."
> 
> The whole patch set is neither a joke/troll nor something I would
> necessarily want to be include myself. It does have the RFC tag.
> 
> As a maintainer myself (and based on somewhat disturbed feedback from
> other maintainers) I can only make the conclusion that nobody knows
> what the responsibility part here means.
> 
> I would interpret, if I read it like at lawyer at least, that even
> for existing code you would need to do the changes postmorterm.

That's wrong in the light of the interpretation document, yes.

> Is this wrong interpretation?  Should I conclude that I made a
> mistake by reading the CoC and trying to understand what it
> *actually* says?

You can't read it in isolation, you need to read it along with the
interpretation document.  The latter was created precisely because
there was a lot of push back on interpretation problems and ambiguities
with the original CoC and it specifically covers this case (and a lot
of others).

James


> After this discussion, I can say that I understand it less than
> before.
> 
> /Jarkko
>