Re: [PATCH v2] generic: test for failure to unlock inode after chgrp fails with EDQUOT

From: "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Eryu Guan <guaneryu@gmail.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
	xfs <linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
	Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@debian.org>,
	Security Officers <security@kernel.org>,
	Debian Security Team <team@security.debian.org>,
	benjamin.moody@gmail.com, Ben Hutchings <benh@debian.org>,
	fstests <fstests@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] generic: test for failure to unlock inode after chgrp fails with EDQUOT
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2019 08:04:51 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190827150451.GY1037350@magnolia> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1908270811030.1939@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>

On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 08:13:19AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Aug 2019, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > +++ b/tests/generic/719
> > @@ -0,0 +1,59 @@
> > +#! /bin/bash
> > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-newer
> 
> Please run scripts/spdxcheck.py on that file and consult the licensing
> documentation.

-or-later, sorry.

So .... now that everyone who wanted these SPDX identifiers have spread
"GPL-2.0+" around the kernel and related projects (xfsprogs, xfstests)
just in time for SPDX 3.0 to deprecate the "+" syntax, what are we
supposed to do?  Another treewide change to fiddle with SPDX syntax?
Can we just put:

Valid-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+
Valid-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later

in the LICENSES/GPL-2.0 file like the kernel does?

Is that even going to stay that way?  I thought I heard that Greg was
working on phasing out the "2.0+" tags since SPDX deprecated that?

I think xfsprogs and xfstests just follow whatever the kernel does, but
AFAICT this whole initiative /continues/ to communicate poorly with the
maintainers about (1) how this is supposed to benefit us and (2) what we
are supposed to do to maintain all of it.

Do we have to get lawyers involved to roll to a new SPDX version?  Will
LF do that for (at least) the projects hosted on kernel.org?  Should we
just do it and hope for the best since IANAFL?  I know how to review
code.  I don't know how to review licensing and all the tiny
implications that go along with things like this.  I don't even feel
confident that the two identifiers above are exactly the same, because
all I know is that I read it on a webpage somewhere.

I for one still have heard abso-f*cking-lutely nothing about what is
this SPDX change other than Greg shoving treewide changes in the kernel.
That sufficed to get the mechanical work done (at the cost of a lot of
frustration for Greg) but this doesn't help me sustain our community.

Guidance needed.  Apologies all around if this rant is misdirected, but
I have no idea who (if anyone) is maintaining SPDX tags.  There's no
entry for LICENSES/ in MAINTAINERS, which is where I looked first.

--D

> Thanks,
> 
> 	tglx