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 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 758C3C433EF for ; Mon, 11 Oct 2021 07:43:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5ED3F60EC0 for ; Mon, 11 Oct 2021 07:43:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S234574AbhJKHpW (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Oct 2021 03:45:22 -0400 Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.211]:36203 "EHLO verein.lst.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S234317AbhJKHpS (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Oct 2021 03:45:18 -0400 Received: by verein.lst.de (Postfix, from userid 2407) id 825CB68AFE; Mon, 11 Oct 2021 09:43:16 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2021 09:43:16 +0200 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Simon Ser Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Alex Deucher , Stephen Rothwell , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux Next Mailing List Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the amdgpu tree Message-ID: <20211011074316.GA10882@lst.de> References: <20211008113116.4bdd7b6c@canb.auug.org.au> <20211008192910.600a188d@canb.auug.org.au> <_POw9ikafXoqSFqiOb8SZb_uvRZ4okgD4qrl4EtJ0UBiQTV7pwV3pJIM20eIzmpuFWDeBF9NPD00r72ttX0mZZ0bNeH_J44MoaB-jfjrQSU=@emersion.fr> <20211011073348.GA10672@lst.de> <-6WWj2RSqFheia8o3VKtAiF3bELME9376cYzwiLSY1-E7p9nqfWNqJ5i86Q--BKXa3aolokj8g8nj2tQorzn0LXuD85tD_rXSfE5t1lsvBs=@emersion.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <-6WWj2RSqFheia8o3VKtAiF3bELME9376cYzwiLSY1-E7p9nqfWNqJ5i86Q--BKXa3aolokj8g8nj2tQorzn0LXuD85tD_rXSfE5t1lsvBs=@emersion.fr> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 07:39:52AM +0000, Simon Ser wrote: > I don't understand. Can you elaborate why you think this commit is > "utter crap"? A kernel driver has absolutely no business making decissions based on current->comm, which can be changed by any userspace process. This is kernel programming 101. Independent of that a check for a specific program as the callers makes no sense whatsoever as a given program and change over time. This is not even something kernel specific but something that ever software engineer should do. > I'd also appreciate if you could be a bit less aggressive. There's > nothing "obvious" about this from my point of view. I'm not agressive. I'm just really disappointed by the amoubt of crap that gets shovelled into the kernel and even more disappointed by the abslutely lack of knowledge of some of the contributors.