On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 11:26:07AM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > A) If we are going to have this discussion in public we really should > include the containers list. Ah, just used the output from get_maintainers.pl. > > B) The challenge is that most of the namespace work has become part of > it's upstream subsystem so we really need to list the containers > list and ourselves as reviewers, more than maintainers who run > a tree for the code. > > C) You have overstated what I have agreed to here. > I have have previously said that I agree that having a MAINTAINERS > entry so people who are unfamiliar with the situation with namespaces > can find us. Given that most of the changes going forward are likely > to be maintenance changes. > > I also said we need to talk about how we plan to maintain the code > here. > > It feels like you are pushing this hard, and I am not certain why you > are pushing and rushing this. With my maintainer hat on my big > concern is we catch the issues that will introduce security issue. > Recently I have seen a report that there is an issue on Ubuntu > kernels where anyone can read /etc/shadow. The problem is that > Ubuntu has not been cautions and has not taken the time to figure out > how to enable things for unprivileged users safely, and have just > enabled the code to be used by unprivileged users because it is > useful. > > In combination with you pushing hard and not taking the time to > complete this conversation in private with me, this MAINTAINERS entry > makes me uneasy as it feels like you may be looking for a way to push > the code into the mainline kernel like has been pushed into the > Ubuntu kernel. I may be completely wrong I just don't know what to > make of your not finishing our conversation in private, and forcing > my hand by posting this patch publicly. > > The files you have listed are reasonable for a maintainers entry as they > have no other maintainers. > > I know I have been less active after the birth of my young son, and I > know the practical rule is that the person who does the work is the > maintainer. At the same time I am not convinced you are actually going > to do the work to make new code maintainable and not a problem for other > kernel developers. > > A big part the job over the years has been to make the namespace ideas > proposed sane, and to keep the burden from other maintainers of naive > and terrible code. Pushing this change before we finished our private > conversation makes me very nervous on that front. Ok, Eric. I've tried to do this with the best intentions possible and I would assume that this is the default assumption everyone would have after all these years. This type of response is very shocking to me and I honestly don't know how to respond! I'm dropping this completely because I'm not going to be accused of having a hidden agenda! Such an accusation is imho completely out of line and it is completely unacceptable to treat a peer like this! Christian _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
