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=-0.7 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED 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 55A0AC433E0 for ; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 14:47:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38D79207E8 for ; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 14:47:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728329AbgGGOrh (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Jul 2020 10:47:37 -0400 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:1442 "EHLO mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726805AbgGGOrg (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Jul 2020 10:47:36 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098421.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 067EkZcO062253; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 10:47:05 -0400 Received: from ppma02fra.de.ibm.com (47.49.7a9f.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [159.122.73.71]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 324mcamrve-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 07 Jul 2020 10:47:05 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma02fra.de.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma02fra.de.ibm.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 067EaWja027432; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 14:47:02 GMT Received: from b06cxnps4075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay12.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.197]) by ppma02fra.de.ibm.com with ESMTP id 322hd83kwj-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 07 Jul 2020 14:47:02 +0000 Received: from d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.59]) by b06cxnps4075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 067Ejj0g61472952 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 7 Jul 2020 14:45:45 GMT Received: from d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07247A4055; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 14:45:45 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CDB2A4057; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 14:45:44 +0000 (GMT) Received: from linux.ibm.com (unknown [9.148.202.169]) by d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 14:45:44 +0000 (GMT) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2020 17:45:42 +0300 From: Mike Rapoport To: Steven Rostedt Cc: Kees Cook , ksummit , Greg Kroah-Hartman , LKML , "tech-board-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org" , Chris Mason Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [Tech-board-discuss] [PATCH] CodingStyle: Inclusive Terminology Message-ID: <20200707144542.GD9411@linux.ibm.com> References: <159389297140.2210796.13590142254668787525.stgit@dwillia2-desk3.amr.corp.intel.com> <202007062234.A90F922DF@keescook> <202007070137.3ADBEDC@keescook> <20200707094147.213e0a82@oasis.local.home> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200707094147.213e0a82@oasis.local.home> 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_08:2020-07-07,2020-07-07 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 clxscore=1015 mlxscore=0 bulkscore=0 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=1 mlxlogscore=999 spamscore=0 impostorscore=0 cotscore=-2147483648 lowpriorityscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2004280000 definitions=main-2007070105 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jul 07, 2020 at 09:41:47AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Tue, 7 Jul 2020 01:54:23 -0700 > Kees Cook wrote: > > > "I will whitelist the syscall" -- sounds correct to me (same for > > "it is whitelisted" or "it is in whitelisting mode"). > > > > "I will allow-list the syscall" -- sounds wrong to me (same for > > "it is allow-listed" or "it is in allow-listing mode"). > > That's because we can't just make "allow-list" a drop in replacement > for "whitelist" as I too (native English speaker) find it awkward. But > then we don't need to make it a drop in replacement. > > "I will whitelist the syscall" will become "I will add the syscall to > the allow-list", which sounds perfectly fine, and even better than > saying "I will add the syscall to the whitelist". I will allow the syscall? > -- Steve -- Sincerely yours, Mike.