Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2012 12:16:06 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <>
To: Andrew Morton <>
Cc: Kees Cook <>,,
	Alexander Viro <>,
	Rik van Riel <>,
	Federica Teodori <>,
	Lucian Adrian Grijincu <>,
	Peter Zijlstra <>,
	Eric Paris <>, Randy Dunlap <>,
	Dan Rosenberg <>,,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2012.1] fs: symlink restrictions on sticky directories

* Andrew Morton <> wrote:

> On Fri, 6 Jan 2012 11:05:20 +0100 Ingo Molnar <> wrote:
> > * Andrew Morton <> wrote:
> > 
> > > Maybe true for a general purpose computer, but someone who 
> > > is making a single-purpose device such as a digital TV or 
> > > a wifi router won't want it.
> > 
> > That's the case for 99% of the features and semantics we 
> > have: by definition a single-purpose device uses only a 
> > small sub-set of an infinite purpose OS, right?
> > 
> > Still we only modularize semantics out if they easily fit 
> > into some existing plug-in/module concept, if the feature is 
> > arguably oddball that a sizable portion of people want to 
> > disable, or if it makes notable sense for size reasons. To 
> > me it looked distinctly silly to complicate things for such 
> > a small piece of code.
> We're talking tens or hundreds of millions of machines for 
> which the patch is a straightforward speed and space 
> regression.  Fixing this needs just a little Kconfig twiddling 
> and a #else clause.  We may as well do it.

No strong objections from me.

> > I doubt Kees would mind modularizing it, but it would be nice to 
> > get VFS maintainer feedback in the:
> > 
> >    { 'you are crazy, over my dead body' ... 'cool, merge it' }
> > 
> > continuous spectrum of possible answers.
> Well yes.  We'll get there.
> Alas, I've become rather slack in my maintainer patchbombing 
> in the past year or two.  It's just boring and depressing to 
> spray patches at maintainers and have 90% or more of them 
> simply ignored. [...]

How about just sending it to Linus after the first ignored patch 
[perhaps marked in a special way, to make Linus aware of the 
out-of-band nature of the patches], instead of buffering them 
indefinitely and increasing your overhead all around?

We'll no doubt regret some of those patches going upstream, but 
that's OK i think, this is an exception mechanism.

> [...] I'm sitting on 45 such patches at present so I suppose I 
> should get off my tail and do a respray.

(If I missed any then let me know.)



Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.