From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDE75C49EA6 for ; Fri, 25 Jun 2021 00:27:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B734D613B9 for ; Fri, 25 Jun 2021 00:27:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232892AbhFYA3y (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Jun 2021 20:29:54 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:38592 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229585AbhFYA3x (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Jun 2021 20:29:53 -0400 Received: from mail-lf1-x133.google.com (mail-lf1-x133.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::133]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 179A9C061756; Thu, 24 Jun 2021 17:27:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf1-x133.google.com with SMTP id k10so13315761lfv.13; Thu, 24 Jun 2021 17:27:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=QkGCFslBFVEm4J7DpBVdsnseTugB0cOwDNm7cV2zBW0=; b=rJuTb2Bj4MaSE0spXSNP6lUBaC4itatlnuLFjKVcH6w7feh1vwKaEvzssnbkKxQYh/ /dK2+nhp/wXoWHPTlgwUj+/nmIdwq1NQrJs8YJPECGNT/6PtpCyq/usEKcVX96n/liDP KmxleMYl/+GXPZNKc4qHBWN3QYNnp0W3sFrOV7/uONgbjvqySwtt3Yia7hmrYQdKITHl HJN3YOUQXIgnvw5Kfxev9gNHflCGOZCMoxEUm2UgIIo0c7zaXuattH1vr5hSjX5JYQup OKHRyy8lJB7wV2l83ud8q0od1gxaVGGmyyOJI0Q+O14Wsrn8eMUX8RJhJGNVvUJiQE3u 1uzw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=QkGCFslBFVEm4J7DpBVdsnseTugB0cOwDNm7cV2zBW0=; b=uod2S2vMhVFcnVz2qBIVI/IxNDgzux/vvn0VT/TeuVW0eTCPCoRCMgsYpioc90wA+u Q3rZJnf/dLXz0ghBL30ctc1ROfdRfYcO46PVz4uLxp251RVbSJNtoVfNhz4PnB0hQ//k MAAft0afK0QZK2jwO2qWItwlJyUP/s5KDwV7pF7F9KiuraJv4yUQTzf+60XbLYt4R/8L FN87NntDm+8O8ul5nCpGGiW+GneS340TPY3b3WAS5XiuvjEA3sEjiNkmnLPYXLRE0HB+ bCG81m+n8BhtCkz+BLv3QVuSr5SsD0iwIucv8CC6ci2O8Ja0aYUg7F71tjsfq+mNyQdy SiYA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531TXcCUJhqjWSuwz8v8DigvNgglShq6EjrAPGRKe73IpVd+A0xK mGs9kaIdBD/sDl5YbTdLjFKv2Sn/ylqUb1r42lg= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyviSFlWFHqasv17UScTMsfxi7ZruZxtI0tWDeJte1oxuzJA8SXIU2JpFZePfNXJdMAsyVw7ZEERdlWdFvqPic= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:3e02:: with SMTP id i2mr5674462lfv.409.1624580851373; Thu, 24 Jun 2021 17:27:31 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20210618105526.265003-1-zenczykowski@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: From: =?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_=C5=BBenczykowski?= Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2021 17:27:20 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf] Revert "bpf: program: Refuse non-O_RDWR flags in BPF_OBJ_GET" To: Daniel Borkmann Cc: Lorenz Bauer , Alexei Starovoitov , Linux Network Development Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , BPF Mailing List , "David S . Miller" , Andrii Nakryiko , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Linus Torvalds , Lorenzo Colitti , =?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_=C5=BBenczykowski?= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: bpf@vger.kernel.org > > You're barking up the wrong tree. I don't object to reverting the > > patch, you asked me for context and I gave it to you. > > +1, this kind of barking was unnecessary and inappropriate. > > I revamped the commit message a bit to have some more context for future > reference when we need to get back on this. > > Anyway, applied. Thank you for applying the change. Sorry for the tone, but work has been particularly hectic these past few quarters, with a constant onslaught of neverending deadlines... The current kernel patch management system provides virtually no feedback about (rejected) patches. There is no email when a patch is rejected (and often even when applied) and there is no notification of who did it or why. It's very much like dealing with a faceless robot. I'm stuck periodically refreshing a browser tab with https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/list/ and waiting on patch state to change from new to accepted or 'changes requested'. In this particular case, there was no email feedback from any maintainer, except for the patch going into 'changes requested' state on patchworks, and the email thread (which only had me and Lorenz participating) also didn't appear to have any reason in it either.... As such, it was extremely unclear what was being asked of me. It felt like I was simply being ignored. - Maciej