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=-5.7 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,MENTIONS_GIT_HOSTING,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=unavailable 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 A4FF7C433E0 for ; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 06:49:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from silver.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [140.211.166.136]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 84A1F20675 for ; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 06:49:45 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 84A1F20675 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.ibm.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ksummit-discuss-bounces@lists.linuxfoundation.org Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by silver.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E9FD2563C; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 06:49:45 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Received: from silver.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8Pa4sCFNIyv8; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 06:49:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.linuxfoundation.org (lf-lists.osuosl.org [140.211.9.56]) by silver.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EB68279FC; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 06:49:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lf-lists.osuosl.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7525C0891; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 06:49:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from hemlock.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [140.211.166.133]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72F2BC016F; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 06:49:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hemlock.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F6E389674; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 06:49:31 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Received: from hemlock.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2LmcXyOMMKU8; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 06:49:30 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.158.5]) by hemlock.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AD47A89654; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 06:49:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pps.filterd (m0098413.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 0676VDxF113440; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 02:49:28 -0400 Received: from ppma06ams.nl.ibm.com (66.31.33a9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.51.49.102]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 324fdgxa0j-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 07 Jul 2020 02:49:28 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma06ams.nl.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma06ams.nl.ibm.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 0676lC5m016610; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 06:49:26 GMT Received: from b06cxnps3075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay10.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.195]) by ppma06ams.nl.ibm.com with ESMTP id 322h1h32gp-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 07 Jul 2020 06:49:26 +0000 Received: from d06av24.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av24.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.60]) by b06cxnps3075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 0676nOGT58130548 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 7 Jul 2020 06:49:24 GMT Received: from d06av24.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A2A34204C; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 06:49:24 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av24.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 805C842041; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 06:49:23 +0000 (GMT) Received: from linux.ibm.com (unknown [9.148.202.169]) by d06av24.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 06:49:23 +0000 (GMT) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2020 09:49:21 +0300 From: Mike Rapoport To: Kees Cook Message-ID: <20200707064921.GA9411@linux.ibm.com> References: <159389297140.2210796.13590142254668787525.stgit@dwillia2-desk3.amr.corp.intel.com> <202007062234.A90F922DF@keescook> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <202007062234.A90F922DF@keescook> X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.235, 18.0.687 definitions=2020-07-07_02:2020-07-07, 2020-07-07 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 adultscore=0 impostorscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 priorityscore=1501 phishscore=0 cotscore=-2147483648 suspectscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 malwarescore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2004280000 definitions=main-2007070047 Cc: ksummit , Greg Kroah-Hartman , LKML , tech-board-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org, Chris Mason Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH] CodingStyle: Inclusive Terminology X-BeenThere: ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: ksummit-discuss-bounces@lists.linuxfoundation.org Sender: "Ksummit-discuss" On Mon, Jul 06, 2020 at 10:56:17PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > On Mon, Jul 06, 2020 at 09:29:46AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > > Is most contexts where 'whitelist' or 'blacklist' might be used, a > > descriptive phrase could be used instead. For example, a seccomp > > filter could have a 'list of allowed syscalls' or a 'list of > > disallowed syscalls', and just lists could be the 'allowed' or > > 'accepted' lists and the 'disallowed', 'rejected', or 'blocked' lists. > > If a single word replacement for 'whitelist' or 'blacklist' is needed, > > 'allowlist', 'blocklist', or 'denylist' could be used. > > Yup. See: > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/202007041703.51F4059CA@keescook/ > specifically the terminology for seccomp is already "allow-list" and > "deny-list": > https://github.com/mkerrisk/man-pages/commit/462ce23d491904a0b46252dc97c8cb42391c093e (last year) > https://github.com/seccomp/libseccomp/commit/0e762521d604612bb4dca8867d4a428a5e6cae54 (last month) > > > Second, I realize that I grew up thinking that 'whitelist' and > > 'blacklist' are the common terms for lists of things to be accepted > > and rejected and that this biases my perception of what sounds good, > > but writing a seccomp "denylist" or "blocklist" doesn't seem to roll > > off the tongue. Perhaps this language would be better: > > I have struggled with this as well. The parts of speech change, and my > grammar senses go weird. whitelist = adjective noun. allow-list = verb > noun. verbing the adj/noun combo feels okay, but verbing a verb/noun is > weird. > > And just using "allowed" and "denied" doesn't impart whether it refers > to a _single_ instance or a _list_ of instances. > > But that's all fine. The change is easy to do and is more descriptive > even if I can't find terms that don't collide with my internal grammar > checker. ;) How about yeslist and nolist? ;-) > -- > Kees Cook > _______________________________________________ > Ksummit-discuss mailing list > Ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ksummit-discuss -- Sincerely yours, Mike. _______________________________________________ Ksummit-discuss mailing list Ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ksummit-discuss