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=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=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 28893C4CECD for ; Tue, 17 Sep 2019 08:44:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 031AE21852 for ; Tue, 17 Sep 2019 08:44:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729032AbfIQIon convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Sep 2019 04:44:43 -0400 Received: from luna.lichtvoll.de ([194.150.191.11]:47305 "EHLO mail.lichtvoll.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726564AbfIQIon (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Sep 2019 04:44:43 -0400 Received: from 127.0.0.1 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail.lichtvoll.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5618877320; Tue, 17 Sep 2019 10:44:40 +0200 (CEST) From: Martin Steigerwald To: Willy Tarreau Cc: Matthew Garrett , Linus Torvalds , "Ahmed S. Darwish" , "Theodore Y. Ts'o" , Vito Caputo , Lennart Poettering , Andreas Dilger , Jan Kara , Ray Strode , William Jon McCann , "Alexander E. Patrakov" , zhangjs , linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, lkml Subject: Re: Linux 5.3-rc8 Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2019 10:44:40 +0200 Message-ID: <16898130.scaMKaIPcm@merkaba> In-Reply-To: <20190917083516.GA27098@1wt.eu> References: <2508489.jOnZlRuxVn@merkaba> <20190917083516.GA27098@1wt.eu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Authentication-Results: mail.lichtvoll.de; auth=pass smtp.auth=martin smtp.mailfrom=martin@lichtvoll.de Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org Willy Tarreau - 17.09.19, 10:35:16 CEST: > On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 09:33:40AM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote: > > However this again would be burdening users with an issue they > > should > > not have to care about. Unless userspace developers care enough and > > manage to take time to fix the issue before updated kernels come to > > their systems. Cause again it would be users systems that would not > > be working. Just cause kernel and userspace developers did not > > agree and chose to fight with each other instead of talking *with* > > each other. > It has nothing to do with fighting at all, it has to do with offering > what applications *need* without breaking existing assumptions that > make most applications work. And more importantly it involves not […] Well I got the impression or interpretation that it would be about fighting… if it is not, all the better! > > At least with killing gdm Systemd may restart it if configured to do > > so. But if it doesn't, the user is again stuck with a non working > > system until restarting gdm themselves. > > > > It may still make sense to make the API harder to use, > > No. What is hard to use is often misused. It must be harder to misuse > it, which means it should be easier to correctly use it. The choice of > flag names and the emission of warnings definitely helps during the > development stage. Sorry, this was a typo of mine. I actually meant harder to abuse. Anything else would not make sense in the context of what I have written. Make it easier to use properly and harder to abuse. > > but it does not > > replace talking with userspace developers and it would need some > > time to allow for adapting userspace applications and services. > > Which is how adding new flags can definitely help even if adoption > takes time. By the way in this discussion I am a userspace developer > and have been hit several times by libraries switching to getrandom() > that silently failed to respond in field. As a userspace developer, I > really want to see a solution to this problem. And I'm fine if the > kernel decides to kill haproxy for using getrandom() with the old > settings, at least users will notice, will complain to me and will > update. Good to see that you are also engaging as a userspace developer in the discussion. Thanks, -- Martin