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=-0.9 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no 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 990D2C433DF for ; Sun, 5 Jul 2020 01:10:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79B6820885 for ; Sun, 5 Jul 2020 01:10:27 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=chromium.org header.i=@chromium.org header.b="BX49XED6" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728126AbgGEBKU (ORCPT ); Sat, 4 Jul 2020 21:10:20 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:51900 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727041AbgGEBKU (ORCPT ); Sat, 4 Jul 2020 21:10:20 -0400 Received: from mail-pg1-x542.google.com (mail-pg1-x542.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::542]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 508C1C061794 for ; Sat, 4 Jul 2020 18:10:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pg1-x542.google.com with SMTP id d194so13384646pga.13 for ; Sat, 04 Jul 2020 18:10:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=chromium.org; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=1Vm4HRhvjHhFdTobKM449g3tVhZrMSOdwfZujY8R/hk=; b=BX49XED6kLgKZ2llloNkd986iui2sFmeYin1jeehgk2pTKbUwqfqDe8+IYO+6v65OK eSH8LREdtMsZKl7Ld4rqEoPZMa4EXb9F8YBn9DRln3JZ+ZeDdYzgk+BRG9l3hFzvPx3s /dJBk3IXA2nylMtu0hfsq2SWiv92VZKwQrqYY= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=1Vm4HRhvjHhFdTobKM449g3tVhZrMSOdwfZujY8R/hk=; b=ENpF+HCLreIw2dHJPriaJZ0WE3vMZHkaTzrG/iHPsua/pDaqrD4pvJBH5SWolO3GqZ eSuMqs1CF5IfA3kZ5hVrUmZfUPFCHvc0ttO9+2nsD0aRMN+gJfwZ+lR5WcOVDXLE0hfB K/uTq4zTBdTjjapoMrIPvbXrOwWy8tdYLa0GwXhUcPT/UhcN9SWSatM7gWIFHz4SeB9Q K6uvd8CO2ov8NWt6HKYrOuzyMvkuOYSCYz2YNN04ZXHlGHEjEA2JKJcaE5xVRViwkMT5 S4ZEeVDZhT565G56978owLhEpmB3SnCXJ4g8gaYRwsDgZ3Oy9V1pnsTP1xMUDYXApD/l pd4Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533Zsiywu87sJroPiVyKCMt4q7d8QpJAVWvdfXegWzm54GIZyalI 2bQHan2OdipBgPMdGZLGUrCXDg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJya9+b8rK6wZf0FcN/JrMCWTkK0eTwfDk2tA+2jp9upzyqC8kvr8z5dzQAWK4xYzFmMNXiCUQ== X-Received: by 2002:a63:3409:: with SMTP id b9mr35832163pga.106.1593911419506; Sat, 04 Jul 2020 18:10:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from www.outflux.net (smtp.outflux.net. [198.145.64.163]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id mg17sm10385151pjb.55.2020.07.04.18.10.18 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Sat, 04 Jul 2020 18:10:18 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 4 Jul 2020 18:10:17 -0700 From: Kees Cook To: Matthew Wilcox Cc: Dave Airlie , ksummit , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Randy Dunlap , LKML , tech-board-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org, Chris Mason Subject: Re: [Tech-board-discuss] [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH] CodingStyle: Inclusive Terminology Message-ID: <202007041804.B5E229E2B6@keescook> References: <159389297140.2210796.13590142254668787525.stgit@dwillia2-desk3.amr.corp.intel.com> <920e6dc0-628b-9bad-926a-d1238a373cda@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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