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=-6.7 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham 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 5BF17C433E0 for ; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 04:00:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F41C206C3 for ; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 04:00:54 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.i=@intel-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.b="BHeyflV6" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728070AbgGGEAx (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Jul 2020 00:00:53 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:39982 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725766AbgGGEAw (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Jul 2020 00:00:52 -0400 Received: from mail-ej1-x643.google.com (mail-ej1-x643.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::643]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 24254C061755 for ; Mon, 6 Jul 2020 21:00:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ej1-x643.google.com with SMTP id w6so45182666ejq.6 for ; Mon, 06 Jul 2020 21:00:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=intel-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=RiTUd30YmJWb1fR+5buiDF30CrJs9OFRR3WVfOGfSb4=; b=BHeyflV6RoznUcXBRpPYNaIbudFhxREm72Qe1T8xUGuu+DAiyR6NQm3yIQSS4eqCv4 aX/OXEOhsf7+WvRzSy1BIblQ8yoSEtwwv7sxGDg34Q1uHSxEA4shP8nrfAGetaGndj0G FmLj9qUCMkJgSVCEaZit0TKu1eV0xwj4YX3bfQ+ti5RD4UNlPGnLiVhJTB31RPUVBt4x 8/HLUlffhGATdlhVdNgmZW4om1fBciZJZySeIoEHoXMeWViRDj59zTpcuY6jv3bqT9A8 /MK1g09kZV6xJVFVK7AW6u79pMQoLyjWbbRpJouyzoU3QXJZhHo5wFuuhvgtvKKZlQ5b 9LMA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=RiTUd30YmJWb1fR+5buiDF30CrJs9OFRR3WVfOGfSb4=; b=dDDGCAp+WzwPZ0CWumZqoFtoZTxNY7+by2TCt6JP+VwuJuy0a+K+4kb2D06AWvw54z 179feFNnf60WR8D94emoai6BaOW3fLeFK+Vt6HBjkPD5Vfgy7jQdH6J7Gqw2MejpsVtR FzIbeSJF/wipwzv/pcVazpCvxihL2IdXYLmyqACWZhK7Ygcn0HwXUqwPCMI1OpMErmWj QcXKJj9bO2/WXHooA982PM6JvzugxYEb/W0gE3TmttTG3hSUAR4K4c05Goy1p0Ac4iX9 IncGBjVFlN4D9EqjDw7B/nJ8VPZh8XLxv0CJF5AG4jh2Qqq1tO28zelvPxPjF9Q/1dD5 JAvw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530XTck8RgruAwinlw+lkC3yXIM/nRzKw/88m7vDCBKA6QlVZZTo tv4DN35st0SAPAvUacfDX47wS7459Nw8S8X/DI338Q== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz3KQvVBhA7Y0YwNEKvyl4CztxXT6qc6mqeAmtorkR45QxvUPz/UArxTaquGWhGgMLSqyE/6DU9uF2gxGLiiMQ= X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:cc0e:: with SMTP id ml14mr44793713ejb.432.1594094450761; Mon, 06 Jul 2020 21:00:50 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <159389297140.2210796.13590142254668787525.stgit@dwillia2-desk3.amr.corp.intel.com> In-Reply-To: From: Dan Williams Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2020 21:00:38 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH] CodingStyle: Inclusive Terminology To: Andy Lutomirski Cc: Linus Torvalds , ksummit , Greg Kroah-Hartman , LKML , tech-board-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org, Chris Mason Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 9:30 AM Andy Lutomirski wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 4, 2020 at 1:19 PM Dan Williams wrote: > > > > Recent events have prompted a Linux position statement on inclusive > > terminology. Given that Linux maintains a coding-style and its own > > idiomatic set of terminology here is a proposal to answer the call to > > replace non-inclusive terminology. > > > > Cc: Jonathan Corbet > > Cc: Kees Cook > > Signed-off-by: Chris Mason > > Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman > > Signed-off-by: Dan Williams > > --- > > Documentation/process/coding-style.rst | 12 ++++ > > Documentation/process/inclusive-terminology.rst | 64 +++++++++++++++++++++++ > > Documentation/process/index.rst | 1 > > 3 files changed, 77 insertions(+) > > create mode 100644 Documentation/process/inclusive-terminology.rst > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst b/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst > > index 2657a55c6f12..4b15ab671089 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst > > +++ b/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst > > @@ -319,6 +319,18 @@ If you are afraid to mix up your local variable names, you have another > > problem, which is called the function-growth-hormone-imbalance syndrome. > > See chapter 6 (Functions). > > > > +For symbol names, avoid introducing new usage of the words 'slave' and > > +'blacklist' > > Can you put whitelist in the list, too? Yes, will do. I had left it out mistakenly thinking it would help focus the discussion, but the replacements don't make sense without including the replacements for whitelist. > > >. Recommended replacements for 'slave' are: 'secondary', > > +'subordinate', 'replica', 'responder', 'follower', 'proxy', or > > +'performer'. > > Should 'target' be in this list? Yes. > Should there be some mention of "master" to go along with "slave"? > This could be complicated -- as has been noted in this thread, the > word "master" has quite a few meanings, several of which are not > related to slavery or to any form of control, and that the meanings > associated with "master" and its cognates in other languages vary. Yes, I'll at least expand this with the paired terminology for each of the replacements of 'slave'. > > > Recommended replacements for blacklist are: 'blocklist' or > > +'denylist'. > > As someone who has written seccomp code and described the result as a > "whitelist" or "blacklist" in the past, I have a couple of comments. > > First, shouldn't whitelist be in the list? I find it surprising to > put 'blacklist' in the blocklist but to omit whitelist. > > 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: > > 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. That makes practical sense to me. Now that I look at this I think the recommendation for the shorthand replacement should only be one style option, lets say "blocklist/passlist" because it's not as amenable to context sensitive replacements as "slave" and benefits from a standard single shorthand. > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,64 @@ > > +.. _inclusiveterminology: > > + > > +Linux kernel inclusive terminology > > +================================== > > + > > +The Linux kernel is a global software project, and in 2020 there was a > > +global reckoning on race relations that caused many organizations to > > +re-evaluate their policies and practices relative to the inclusion of > > +people of African descent. This document describes why the 'Naming' > > +section in :ref:`process/coding-style.rst ` recommends > > +avoiding usage of 'slave' and 'blacklist' in new additions to the Linux > > +kernel. > > + > > +On the triviality of replacing words > > +==================================== > > + > > +The African slave trade was a brutal system of human misery deployed at > > +global scale. Some word choice decisions in a modern software project > > +does next to nothing to compensate for that legacy. So why put any > > +effort into something so trivial in comparison? Because the goal is not > > +to repair, or erase the past. The goal is to maximize availability and > > +efficiency of the global developer community to participate in the Linux > > +kernel development process. > > Should this type of historical note be in the document or in the changelog? > > Suppose that we put it in this document and then, in two years, > someone notices that the very first bit of text in your changelog that > diff helpfully quoted for you is also mildly offensive to certain > groups Now we could end up with: > > ... in 2020 there was a global reckoning ... > > ... in 2022, people noticed that comparing peoples' opinions on > variable names to medical conditions could be seen as inappropriate Perhaps. Again, I wanted to stay focused and not dilute the discussion about the specific terminology at issue with a series of "what about" debates. I also did not want to specify a threshold for when Linux would need to deal with an issue like this again. I believe that will be a case of "we'll know it when we see it". Certainly the terminology at hand seems to have passed that threshold given multiple organizations actively discussing and deploying policy to address it. > ... > etc. And now this document ends up with a lot of history and also a > lot of content, and the history part starts to resemble the > now-frowned-upon lists of copyrights and changes that clutter the tops > of various kernel C files. I suppose that changing this could be > deferred until such time as it might be an actual problem, but perhaps > this should go in the changelog instead. Sure, I'd be ok with that to move the coding-style change forward.