> The patch 4 that does: > if (attr->map_token_fd) > wasn't sneaked in in any way. > You were cc-ed on it just like linux-fsdevel@vger > during all 12 revisions of the token series over many months. > > So this accusation of breach of trust is baseless. I was expecting this reply and I'm still disappointed. Both of you were explicitly told in very clear words that special-casing fd 0 is not ok. Fast forward a few weeks, you chose to not just add patches that forbid fd 0 again, no, the heinous part is that you chose to not lose a single word about this: not in the cover letter, not in the relevant commit, not in all the discussions we had around this. You were absolutely aware how opposed we are to this. It cannot get any more sneaky than this. And it's frankly insulting that you choose to defend this by feigning ignorance. No one is buying this. But let's assume for a second that both you and Andrii somehow managed to forget the very clear and heated discussion on-list last time, the resulting LWN article written about it and the in-person discussion around this we had in November at LPC. You still would have put a major deviation from file descriptor semantics in the bpf specific parts of the patches yet failed to lose a single word on this anywhere. Yet we explicitly requested in the last thread that if bpf does deviate from core fs semantics you clearly communicate this. But shame on me as well. I should've caught this during review. I trusted you both enough that I only focussed on the parts that matter for the VFS which were the two patches I ACKed. I didn't think it necessary to wade through the completely uninteresting BPF bits that I couldn't care less about. That won't happen again. What I want for the future is for bpf to clearly, openly, and explicitly communicate any decisions that affect core fs semantics. It's the exact same request I put forward last time. This is a path forward.
