2020-07-05 01:10:58

by Kees Cook

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [Tech-board-discuss] [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH] CodingStyle: Inclusive Terminology

On Sat, Jul 04, 2020 at 08:10:33PM -0400, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> Left-right tree makes no sense. It doesn't distinguish the rbtree from its
> predecessor the avl tree. I don't think it's helpful to rename a standard
> piece of computing terminology unless it's actually hurting us to have it.
> Obviously if it were called a "master-slave" tree, I would be in favour of
> renaming it.

(No one has suggested renaming red/black trees, so I think the
slippery-slope argument can be set aside here.)

As for the actual proposal on white/black-list, I've always been annoyed
by the poor description it provides (and I get to see it A LOT being
the seccomp maintainer). I welcome allow/deny-list (though the change is
not new for seccomp -- the man pages were updated last year (thanks
mkerrisk). :)

--
Kees Cook


2020-07-05 02:45:47

by Randy Dunlap

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [Tech-board-discuss] [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH] CodingStyle: Inclusive Terminology

On 7/4/20 6:10 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 04, 2020 at 08:10:33PM -0400, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>> Left-right tree makes no sense. It doesn't distinguish the rbtree from its
>> predecessor the avl tree. I don't think it's helpful to rename a standard
>> piece of computing terminology unless it's actually hurting us to have it.
>> Obviously if it were called a "master-slave" tree, I would be in favour of
>> renaming it.
>
> (No one has suggested renaming red/black trees, so I think the
> slippery-slope argument can be set aside here.)

Did you read this message?

https://lore.kernel.org/ksummit-discuss/CAPM=9ty0tiL_qM_UFv0S0VtARKz_f-Anngc+amDM5LjGAHazhA@mail.gmail.com/

> As for the actual proposal on white/black-list, I've always been annoyed
> by the poor description it provides (and I get to see it A LOT being
> the seccomp maintainer). I welcome allow/deny-list (though the change is
> not new for seccomp -- the man pages were updated last year (thanks
> mkerrisk). :)
>


--
~Randy

Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [Tech-board-discuss] [PATCH] CodingStyle: Inclusive Terminology

On 7/5/20 3:10 AM, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 04, 2020 at 08:10:33PM -0400, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>> Left-right tree makes no sense. It doesn't distinguish the rbtree from its
>> predecessor the avl tree. I don't think it's helpful to rename a standard
>> piece of computing terminology unless it's actually hurting us to have it.
>> Obviously if it were called a "master-slave" tree, I would be in favour of
>> renaming it.
>
> (No one has suggested renaming red/black trees, so I think the
> slippery-slope argument can be set aside here.)
>
> As for the actual proposal on white/black-list, I've always been annoyed
> by the poor description it provides (and I get to see it A LOT being
> the seccomp maintainer). I welcome allow/deny-list (though the change is
> not new for seccomp -- the man pages were updated last year (thanks
> mkerrisk). :)

Actually, the manual pages are ahead of the game only thanks to
a nice presentation last year @OSS from Stephen Kenigbolo :-).


--
Michael Kerrisk
Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/
Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/

2020-07-06 15:54:10

by Kees Cook

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [Tech-board-discuss] [PATCH] CodingStyle: Inclusive Terminology

On Mon, Jul 06, 2020 at 01:15:38PM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> On 7/5/20 3:10 AM, Kees Cook wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 04, 2020 at 08:10:33PM -0400, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> >> Left-right tree makes no sense. It doesn't distinguish the rbtree from its
> >> predecessor the avl tree. I don't think it's helpful to rename a standard
> >> piece of computing terminology unless it's actually hurting us to have it.
> >> Obviously if it were called a "master-slave" tree, I would be in favour of
> >> renaming it.
> >
> > (No one has suggested renaming red/black trees, so I think the
> > slippery-slope argument can be set aside here.)
> >
> > As for the actual proposal on white/black-list, I've always been annoyed
> > by the poor description it provides (and I get to see it A LOT being
> > the seccomp maintainer). I welcome allow/deny-list (though the change is
> > not new for seccomp -- the man pages were updated last year (thanks
> > mkerrisk). :)
>
> Actually, the manual pages are ahead of the game only thanks to
> a nice presentation last year @OSS from Stephen Kenigbolo :-).

Ah-ha, cool. I think I found it here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtS_t3FHWe0

--
Kees Cook