Received: by 2002:a05:6902:102b:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id x11csp789361ybt; Mon, 6 Jul 2020 23:50:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzM4cyUUABr5kZP9pTddcWJtVuvYmzfgxE8VeEsPoNbMUo20FTsDQb514iIhTsTqCGjHzoz X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:11ce:: with SMTP id va14mr36735190ejb.189.1594104621092; Mon, 06 Jul 2020 23:50:21 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1594104621; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=pO0Oc7JLjGEI7swUTgi3ylMnT+yN08Ngv2xSLfW8LuYnHoJPdTRXkNHvDm9Ibp7FEz wDkTh3QoVsBFDvjE/TkUkut1xNJvxN/EycqQTpES2BpIyAAgo4hJugcw27yGYoeWBWE0 0MCJyvkN2tMSaySXZ3/HInB6EUFNg1OCHpbsTVVM2e7meMVrPK0C24LfSWbiRTLju5H2 iyTV2HGXf7LOUGKXsDlo4zRL5tJvV0luweTzB/zwYKTc0mMZMib4ct5lnS1g5GUoieQ9 DytwdzKSZlLDj50gdFv8YddCKIH7iiNqOwT9krIGVpiw4ykChH0Qrm7Xb57E5hHnHAAs n4fA== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:in-reply-to:content-disposition :mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date; bh=sOS0kgfwxwF2suwyApg/S+3TDGH/365jnzLTTWZfSXU=; b=bdUS/uCyhJRZpsgTsjg8ZYXeI4LdfXJ4VWVkqkOveijAoUDoWSvWXQh2EPyT4W0JQG uU3aI8lhweozn2/HfixsoRLqMxAKe5GS6kuOezgfFdNf74N2K+ojZ9wyADC6zTcLY1xc 2AycQv0uh5GL91GT99BnAA7J5rYJt/fN5ewPnHb6hyxFduUvjsnlUV8HcSixysMv0PA8 BKV/6xt2oLbPpmxs2hBiL3lGjXyD3EUKpmy5CQAC4tgrZxoPPM9IfIk/CTpl+Z3e0CIm VjstJquqPDbmM18c3tQ7uOy0mDCoS+mUjbh6+nGs/LXdP+zg3OHsWeJwRY/sGpTFKp1X +rew== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=ibm.com Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [23.128.96.18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id x9si14996435edj.121.2020.07.06.23.49.57; Mon, 06 Jul 2020 23:50:21 -0700 (PDT) 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; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=ibm.com Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728259AbgGGGtc (ORCPT + 99 others); Tue, 7 Jul 2020 02:49:32 -0400 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:22022 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726540AbgGGGtc (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Jul 2020 02:49:32 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098413.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 0676VDxF113440; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 02:49:28 -0400 Received: from ppma06ams.nl.ibm.com (66.31.33a9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.51.49.102]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 324fdgxa0j-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 07 Jul 2020 02:49:28 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma06ams.nl.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma06ams.nl.ibm.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 0676lC5m016610; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 06:49:26 GMT Received: from b06cxnps3075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay10.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.195]) by ppma06ams.nl.ibm.com with ESMTP id 322h1h32gp-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 07 Jul 2020 06:49:26 +0000 Received: from d06av24.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av24.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.60]) by b06cxnps3075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 0676nOGT58130548 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 7 Jul 2020 06:49:24 GMT Received: from d06av24.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A2A34204C; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 06:49:24 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av24.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 805C842041; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 06:49:23 +0000 (GMT) Received: from linux.ibm.com (unknown [9.148.202.169]) by d06av24.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 06:49:23 +0000 (GMT) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2020 09:49:21 +0300 From: Mike Rapoport To: Kees Cook Cc: Andy Lutomirski , ksummit , Greg Kroah-Hartman , LKML , tech-board-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org, Chris Mason Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH] CodingStyle: Inclusive Terminology Message-ID: <20200707064921.GA9411@linux.ibm.com> References: <159389297140.2210796.13590142254668787525.stgit@dwillia2-desk3.amr.corp.intel.com> <202007062234.A90F922DF@keescook> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <202007062234.A90F922DF@keescook> 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_02:2020-07-07,2020-07-07 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 adultscore=0 impostorscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 priorityscore=1501 phishscore=0 cotscore=-2147483648 suspectscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 malwarescore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2004280000 definitions=main-2007070047 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jul 06, 2020 at 10:56:17PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > On Mon, Jul 06, 2020 at 09:29:46AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > > 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. > > Yup. See: > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/202007041703.51F4059CA@keescook/ > specifically the terminology for seccomp is already "allow-list" and > "deny-list": > https://github.com/mkerrisk/man-pages/commit/462ce23d491904a0b46252dc97c8cb42391c093e (last year) > https://github.com/seccomp/libseccomp/commit/0e762521d604612bb4dca8867d4a428a5e6cae54 (last month) > > > 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: > > I have struggled with this as well. The parts of speech change, and my > grammar senses go weird. whitelist = adjective noun. allow-list = verb > noun. verbing the adj/noun combo feels okay, but verbing a verb/noun is > weird. > > And just using "allowed" and "denied" doesn't impart whether it refers > to a _single_ instance or a _list_ of instances. > > But that's all fine. The change is easy to do and is more descriptive > even if I can't find terms that don't collide with my internal grammar > checker. ;) How about yeslist and nolist? ;-) > -- > Kees Cook > _______________________________________________ > Ksummit-discuss mailing list > Ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ksummit-discuss -- Sincerely yours, Mike.