On Thu, 2024-02-01 at 23:43 +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Tue Jan 30, 2024 at 8:25 PM EET, Dan Williams wrote: > > Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > On Tue Jan 30, 2024 at 7:22 PM EET, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > > On Wed Jan 24, 2024 at 11:10 PM EET, Verma, Vishal L wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 2024-01-24 at 15:40 -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, 2024-01-24 at 20:10 +0000, Verma, Vishal L wrote: > > > > > > > Ah, thanks for confirming! Would you like me to send a > > > > > > > revert patch or > > > > > > > will you do it? > > > > > > > > > > > > Revert "KEYS: encrypted: Add check for strsep" > > > > > > > > > > > > This reverts commit > > > > > > b4af096b5df5dd131ab796c79cedc7069d8f4882. > > > > > > > > > > > > New encrypted keys are created either from kernel-generated > > > > > > random > > > > > > numbers or user-provided decrypted data. Revert the change > > > > > > requiring > > > > > > user-provided decrypted data. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can I add your Reported-by? > > > > > > > > > > Yes that works, Thank you. > > > > > > > > This went totally wrong IMHO. > > > > > > > > Priority should be to locate and fix the bug not revert useful > > > > stuff > > > > when a bug is found that has limited scope. > > > > > > By guidelines here the commit is also a bug fix and reverting > > > such commit means seeding a bug to the mainline. Also the klog > > > message alone is a bug fix here. So also by book it really has > > > to come back as it was already commit because we cannot > > > knowingly mount bugs to the mainline, right? > > > > No, the commit broke userspace. The rule is do not cause > > regressions > > even if userspace is abusing the ABI in an undesirable way. Even > > the > > new pr_info() is a log spamming behavior change, a pr_debug() might > > be > > suitable, but otherwise a logic change here needs a clear > > description > > about what is broken about the old userspace behavior and why the > > kernel > > can not possibly safely handle it. > > The rationale literally gives empirical proof that the log message > is useful by measure. It would be useless if log level is decreased > to debug, as then sysadmin's won't take notice. I don't really know > what is the definition of "spam" here but at least for me actually > useful log message are not in that category. > > Issue was legit but git revert is objectively an incorrect way to > address the bug. No, I made a mistake in upstreaming the patch in the first place. It broke the original "encrypted" keys usage. Reverting it was the correct solution. Mimi
