netdev - Re: [PATCH ethtool v1] netlink: add master/slave configuration support

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: <202006091244.C8B5F9525@keescook>
Date:   Tue, 9 Jun 2020 12:49:48 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:     stephen@...workplumber.org, o.rempel@...gutronix.de,
        andrew@...n.ch, f.fainelli@...il.com, hkallweit1@...il.com,
        kuba@...nel.org, corbet@....net, mkubecek@...e.cz,
        linville@...driver.com, david@...tonic.nl, kernel@...gutronix.de,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux@...linux.org.uk, mkl@...gutronix.de, marex@...x.de,
        christian.herber@....com, amitc@...lanox.com, petrm@...lanox.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH ethtool v1] netlink: add master/slave configuration
 support

On Tue, Jun 09, 2020 at 12:34:37PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
> Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2020 12:29:54 -0700
> 
> > Given what I've seen from other communities and what I know of the kernel
> > community, I don't think we're going to get consensus on some massive
> > global search/replace any time soon. However, I think we can get started
> > on making this change with just stopping further introductions. (I view
> > this like any other treewide change: stop new badness from getting
> > added, and chip away as old ones as we can until it's all gone.)
> 
> The terminology being suggested by these changes matches what is used
> in the standards and literature.
> 
> Inventing something creates confusion for those who are familiar with
> these pieces of technology already, and those who are not who are
> reading about it elsewhere.
> 
> Both groups will be terminally confused if we use different words.
> 
> For such pain, there should be agood reason.  I don't accept Stephen's
> quoted standards bodies "efforts" as a legitimate reason, or evidence
> of such, as it has a lot of holes in it as Edward pointed out.  I
> found the Orwell references to be quite ironic actually.

Okay, for now, how about:

- If we're dealing with an existing spec, match the language.
- If we're dealing with a new spec, ask the authors to fix their language.
- If a new version of a spec has updated its language, adjust the kernel's.
- If we're doing with something "internal" to the kernel (including UAPI),
  stop adding new instances.

-- 
Kees Cook