Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Tue, 9 Jun 2020 12:49:48 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To:     David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc:     stephen@networkplumber.org, o.rempel@pengutronix.de,
        andrew@lunn.ch, f.fainelli@gmail.com, hkallweit1@gmail.com,
        kuba@kernel.org, corbet@lwn.net, mkubecek@suse.cz,
        linville@tuxdriver.com, david@protonic.nl, kernel@pengutronix.de,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux@armlinux.org.uk, mkl@pengutronix.de, marex@denx.de,
        christian.herber@nxp.com, amitc@mellanox.com, petrm@mellanox.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH ethtool v1] netlink: add master/slave configuration
 support
Message-ID: <202006091244.C8B5F9525@keescook>
References: <20200609101935.5716b3bd@hermes.lan>
 <20200609.113633.1866761141966326637.davem@davemloft.net>
 <202006091222.CB97F743AD@keescook>
 <20200609.123437.1057990370119930723.davem@davemloft.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200609.123437.1057990370119930723.davem@davemloft.net>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jun 09, 2020 at 12:34:37PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
> Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2020 12:29:54 -0700
> 
> > Given what I've seen from other communities and what I know of the kernel
> > community, I don't think we're going to get consensus on some massive
> > global search/replace any time soon. However, I think we can get started
> > on making this change with just stopping further introductions. (I view
> > this like any other treewide change: stop new badness from getting
> > added, and chip away as old ones as we can until it's all gone.)
> 
> The terminology being suggested by these changes matches what is used
> in the standards and literature.
> 
> Inventing something creates confusion for those who are familiar with
> these pieces of technology already, and those who are not who are
> reading about it elsewhere.
> 
> Both groups will be terminally confused if we use different words.
> 
> For such pain, there should be agood reason.  I don't accept Stephen's
> quoted standards bodies "efforts" as a legitimate reason, or evidence
> of such, as it has a lot of holes in it as Edward pointed out.  I
> found the Orwell references to be quite ironic actually.

Okay, for now, how about:

- If we're dealing with an existing spec, match the language.
- If we're dealing with a new spec, ask the authors to fix their language.
- If a new version of a spec has updated its language, adjust the kernel's.
- If we're doing with something "internal" to the kernel (including UAPI),
  stop adding new instances.

-- 
Kees Cook