> Johannes Berg discovered that kernel space was leaking to
> userspace on 64 bit platform. He made a first patch to fix that. This
> is an improved version of his patch.
> This was tested on 2.6.21-rc4. Would you mind pushing that
> upstream ?
Just FYI. This patch applies with rejects in net/core/rtnetlink.c and
net/core/wireless.c to wireless-dev. The changes in those two files can
be ignored completely since they affect only the removed
wext-over-netlink interface.
johannes
On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 10:08:20AM -0700, Jean Tourrilhes wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 12:06:50PM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> >
> > Jean Tourrilhes wrote :
> > > Johannes Berg discovered that kernel space was leaking to
> > > userspace on 64 bit platform. He made a first patch to fix that. This
> > > is an improved version of his patch.
> > > This was tested on 2.6.21-rc4. Would you mind pushing that
> > > upstream ?
> >
> > Just FYI. This patch applies with rejects in net/core/rtnetlink.c and
> > net/core/wireless.c to wireless-dev. The changes in those two files can
> > be ignored completely since they affect only the removed
> > wext-over-netlink interface.
> >
> > johannes
>
> I'm sorry to have to write this e-mail. But this incident is
> completely opposed to the ideal of FreeSoftware/OpenSource and
> demonstrate some of the bad politics happening in Linux.
>
> First, I'm the current active maintainer of the
> wext-over-netlink interface, and nobody bothered to even 'inform' me
> about its removal, let alone consult with me.
Honestly, most of us thought you weren't interested.
> This shows a complete lack of courtesy and a total disrespect
> to the concept of maintainer, basically some people are just second
> class citizens.
I'm sorry that you are upset. I do not believe any disrespect was
intended.
> Second, there is no technical justification to such decision,
> it's just plain politics. I would agree that for the vast majority of
> people, this API was useless, as any work in progress. But, it is
> maintained (by me), it is not causing any technical issue, for those
> people it's not compiled in (i.e. no bloat), it is not causing bugs
> and not preventing other code to be merged in the kernel.
> Therefore a purely politic decision.
I would not call it politics, but I do not want to split hairs.
This API was controversial and mostly unwelcome from the start.
It was ridiculed as "ioctls over netlink" at the last kernel summit.
It is widely regarded as less of a solution and more of an extension
to a problem.
One of the objections to having merged the API was that _if_ it were
to gain users then we would have to carry that maintenance burden
ad infinitum. This fear was already beginning to be confirmed by the
efforts at maintaining WE compatibility in cfg80211. Since there were
(thankfully) still no users and only compatibility headaches from
maintaining it, Johannes wanted to remove the code, and I consented
to his request.
I wish you would not view this as a personal issue. Your contributions
are certainly welcome in general. We just don't see any benefit from
keeping this code around as we move forward.
Again, I am terribly sorry that this was a surprise to you. I will be
sure to communicate with you directly should another such issue arise.
> By the way : don't bother replying to this e-mail, nothing
> good will come of it.
Hopefully that isn't totally true...
Regards,
John
--
John W. Linville
[email protected]
Jean,
> First, I'm the current active maintainer of the
> wext-over-netlink interface, and nobody bothered to even 'inform' me
> about its removal, let alone consult with me.
I definitely should have copied you on the feature-removal schedule
patch for wext-over-netlink and then the actual removal in wireless-dev;
please accept my apologies for not doing that, it was not done in bad
faith. It was never my intention to demote you to a "second class
citizen", I'm sorry you feel that way.
I have previously (and multiple times) given technical justification for
removing this code (even recorded in the kernel changelog now) and I
contend your allegation that it is a political issue. Others in this
thread have pointed out the technical issues with wext and wext/nl so I
will not repeat them.
I hope that despite my mistakes in handling the wext/nl removal we will
be able to work together in the future to have wext fully supported with
clear semantics for backwards compatibility while the kernel internally
migrates towards cfg80211.
johannes
On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 01:34:50AM +0200, Michael Buesch wrote:
>
> I'd say nobody but you does fully understand WEXT.
Not true. If tommorow I was run over by an ICE, you could ask
Jouni, Dan or Pavel to take over.
Have fun...
Jean
On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 02:34:42PM -0400, John W. Linville wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 10:08:20AM -0700, Jean Tourrilhes wrote:
> >
> > First, I'm the current active maintainer of the
> > wext-over-netlink interface, and nobody bothered to even 'inform' me
> > about its removal, let alone consult with me.
>
> Honestly, most of us thought you weren't interested.
Please !
> This API was controversial and mostly unwelcome from the start.
> It was ridiculed as "ioctls over netlink" at the last kernel summit.
Which is complete FUD. In that case, the whole RtNetlink can
be classified as "ioctls over netlink".
> One of the objections to having merged the API was that _if_ it were
> to gain users then we would have to carry that maintenance burden
> ad infinitum.
More FUD. It does not add any new commands. The proof is in
the pudding, no change was needed in any driver to support it,
therefore it could not have added any burden on any compatibility
layer.
> Regards,
>
> John
Have fun...
Jean
> > This API was controversial and mostly unwelcome from the start.
> > It was ridiculed as "ioctls over netlink" at the last kernel summit.
>
> Which is complete FUD. In that case, the whole RtNetlink can
> be classified as "ioctls over netlink".
The problem is that WE over netlink is basically using netlink to
transfer the same binary blobs as the WE ioctls, rather than using
properly structured netlink messages.
> > One of the objections to having merged the API was that _if_ it were
> > to gain users then we would have to carry that maintenance burden
> > ad infinitum.
>
> More FUD. It does not add any new commands. The proof is in
> the pudding, no change was needed in any driver to support it,
> therefore it could not have added any burden on any compatibility
> layer.
The point is that if WE over netlink is used by applications, then the
kernel must maintain that ABI (of WE over netlink) forever.
- R.
On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 12:06:50PM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
>
> Jean Tourrilhes wrote :
> > Johannes Berg discovered that kernel space was leaking to
> > userspace on 64 bit platform. He made a first patch to fix that. This
> > is an improved version of his patch.
> > This was tested on 2.6.21-rc4. Would you mind pushing that
> > upstream ?
>
> Just FYI. This patch applies with rejects in net/core/rtnetlink.c and
> net/core/wireless.c to wireless-dev. The changes in those two files can
> be ignored completely since they affect only the removed
> wext-over-netlink interface.
>
> johannes
I'm sorry to have to write this e-mail. But this incident is
completely opposed to the ideal of FreeSoftware/OpenSource and
demonstrate some of the bad politics happening in Linux.
First, I'm the current active maintainer of the
wext-over-netlink interface, and nobody bothered to even 'inform' me
about its removal, let alone consult with me.
This shows a complete lack of courtesy and a total disrespect
to the concept of maintainer, basically some people are just second
class citizens.
Second, there is no technical justification to such decision,
it's just plain politics. I would agree that for the vast majority of
people, this API was useless, as any work in progress. But, it is
maintained (by me), it is not causing any technical issue, for those
people it's not compiled in (i.e. no bloat), it is not causing bugs
and not preventing other code to be merged in the kernel.
Therefore a purely politic decision.
Now, I've got a problem with your attitude in this matter,
Johannes. It's now the second time you remove features from code I
maintain by pure fiat, and you have engaged in a long running FUD
campain about my code. This is totally disgraceful of a Linux
maintainer, and you should know it.
If the only way you have to promote your code is by actively
destroying my code, then you have a real issue. Your code should stand
on its own merit, without the need of attacking other people's work
and playing political tricks.
I hope you will note that I never disparaged your code, I
never prevented its inclusion in Linux and I never attempted to
control the Linux Wireless space and left plenty of space for new
developpers.
You still have a lot to learn, like all of us. You still don't
understand Wireless Extensions (as your FUD shows) and why it's still
so popular despite all its warts. You don't get the value of not
burning bridges with other developpers and professional conduct.
By the way : don't bother replying to this e-mail, nothing
good will come of it.
Have fun...
Jean
On Tuesday 17 April 2007 19:08, Jean Tourrilhes wrote:
> I'm sorry to have to write this e-mail. But this incident is
> completely opposed to the ideal of FreeSoftware/OpenSource and
> demonstrate some of the bad politics happening in Linux.
>
> First, I'm the current active maintainer of the
> wext-over-netlink interface, and nobody bothered to even 'inform' me
> about its removal, let alone consult with me.
> This shows a complete lack of courtesy and a total disrespect
> to the concept of maintainer, basically some people are just second
> class citizens.
>
> Second, there is no technical justification to such decision,
> it's just plain politics. I would agree that for the vast majority of
> people, this API was useless, as any work in progress. But, it is
> maintained (by me), it is not causing any technical issue, for those
> people it's not compiled in (i.e. no bloat), it is not causing bugs
> and not preventing other code to be merged in the kernel.
> Therefore a purely politic decision.
It is _only_ about replacing obsolete code by code that obsoleted it.
That happens all the time. Look at the process scheduler and compare
it to 2.4, for example.
We want to reduce the maintainance burden. Nothing more.
If we remove unused code (which WEXT-NL is), then we don't have to
write compatibility code to support it in future.
Why wait with removal until we can't anymore (when people use it)?
> Now, I've got a problem with your attitude in this matter,
> Johannes. It's now the second time you remove features from code I
> maintain by pure fiat, and you have engaged in a long running FUD
> campain about my code. This is totally disgraceful of a Linux
> maintainer, and you should know it.
> If the only way you have to promote your code is by actively
> destroying my code, then you have a real issue. Your code should stand
> on its own merit, without the need of attacking other people's work
> and playing political tricks.
> I hope you will note that I never disparaged your code, I
> never prevented its inclusion in Linux and I never attempted to
> control the Linux Wireless space and left plenty of space for new
> developpers.
>
> You still have a lot to learn, like all of us. You still don't
> understand Wireless Extensions (as your FUD shows) and why it's still
> so popular despite all its warts. You don't get the value of not
> burning bridges with other developpers and professional conduct.
I'd say nobody but you does fully understand WEXT. Somebody might
call that either a design issue, or a documentation issue.
I personally make both issues responsible for this.
--
Greetings Michael.