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=-5.5 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,MENTIONS_GIT_HOSTING, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham 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 8F9A2C433DF for ; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 05:56:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from hemlock.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [140.211.166.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5A37620739 for ; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 05:56:23 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=chromium.org header.i=@chromium.org header.b="NfXW8gw1" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 5A37620739 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=chromium.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ksummit-discuss-bounces@lists.linuxfoundation.org Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hemlock.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19C61886D6; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 05:56:23 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Received: from hemlock.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dwwb10KVqJRB; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 05:56:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.linuxfoundation.org (lf-lists.osuosl.org [140.211.9.56]) by hemlock.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E829588649; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 05:56:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lf-lists.osuosl.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5838C0893; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 05:56:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from fraxinus.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [140.211.166.137]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 865D0C016F for ; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 05:56:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by fraxinus.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EA0D87B50 for ; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 05:56:20 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Received: from fraxinus.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eqOzHaEfBEB7 for ; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 05:56:20 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-pg1-f195.google.com (mail-pg1-f195.google.com [209.85.215.195]) by fraxinus.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 03C4A87B4B for ; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 05:56:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pg1-f195.google.com with SMTP id z5so19492434pgb.6 for ; Mon, 06 Jul 2020 22:56:19 -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=ZbV4l21xdzW71xXZzlMAZD+NRBjos3envDGwppLzulM=; b=NfXW8gw1ujyflsQLwzIJUJl6yv/6tCYaWdIMXKgCTt4z3Ww0mFNBeIgOPWXnJj2bT6 lv1hrqRXfKZADzlSMJTcecsBSJnaZ8lAlqmmL9nFCKuUyP2jIIRFMK2t3hUUbLKt6Xa3 4z6GvTlG1zXHnw88+cl0MNX0328JZYODTKYZk= 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=ZbV4l21xdzW71xXZzlMAZD+NRBjos3envDGwppLzulM=; b=rFapZ7pPeVDH5pPz2iFCShs6tN0jzsKg7svpWfxLF3yM9PgSoOz5aDdST8UM+BknYr BuZorWzPv0E9jj6qak/gsINZDK6U8moahgI4tv3gsJYubvXz53kdgd5JRcJTUpL/a5ZA 7TAdl20hXF5N9tUsx2KBLZm0QMtNYYypeXrU5QenWVa9RaUjpuKltKKkhPfaASOJ/jZc EoLHKDPgwKQ61qvUuQ2vJQCoAg5/XlMbA7b6GsbRtzsb7BczPuOjSXZfOQo1c0HFRIwF +h5vdE4BvCAYzYp8urnlfGVsNRjloMaAY6uovG3tu3sFfWyt4RvE81zPG8yMuiUYggpk fHSg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533uhz47aPyFfykiaVP3d0I6dcyp5QbDJCQImpWhKqgJBvqPwRMP RvNDx3Kn/dQYEIRk1WAEx2CIIA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzsiNlWqzzBSxLtFN4h9Kxieuvtd0hdAy5D91AwU2e7ZloJSYe7rbLvC6DMYZd+jw9XnsRtkQ== X-Received: by 2002:aa7:860f:: with SMTP id p15mr11390619pfn.59.1594101379542; Mon, 06 Jul 2020 22:56:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from www.outflux.net (smtp.outflux.net. [198.145.64.163]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y27sm21531713pgc.56.2020.07.06.22.56.18 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 06 Jul 2020 22:56:18 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2020 22:56:17 -0700 From: Kees Cook To: Andy Lutomirski Message-ID: <202007062234.A90F922DF@keescook> References: <159389297140.2210796.13590142254668787525.stgit@dwillia2-desk3.amr.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Cc: ksummit , Greg Kroah-Hartman , LKML , tech-board-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org, Chris Mason Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH] CodingStyle: Inclusive Terminology X-BeenThere: ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: ksummit-discuss-bounces@lists.linuxfoundation.org Sender: "Ksummit-discuss" On Mon, Jul 06, 2020 at 09:29:46AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > Is most contexts where 'whitelist' or 'blacklist' might be used, a > descriptive phrase could be used instead. For example, a seccomp > filter could have a 'list of allowed syscalls' or a 'list of > disallowed syscalls', and just lists could be the 'allowed' or > 'accepted' lists and the 'disallowed', 'rejected', or 'blocked' lists. > If a single word replacement for 'whitelist' or 'blacklist' is needed, > 'allowlist', 'blocklist', or 'denylist' could be used. Yup. See: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/202007041703.51F4059CA@keescook/ specifically the terminology for seccomp is already "allow-list" and "deny-list": https://github.com/mkerrisk/man-pages/commit/462ce23d491904a0b46252dc97c8cb42391c093e (last year) https://github.com/seccomp/libseccomp/commit/0e762521d604612bb4dca8867d4a428a5e6cae54 (last month) > Second, I realize that I grew up thinking that 'whitelist' and > 'blacklist' are the common terms for lists of things to be accepted > and rejected and that this biases my perception of what sounds good, > but writing a seccomp "denylist" or "blocklist" doesn't seem to roll > off the tongue. Perhaps this language would be better: I have struggled with this as well. The parts of speech change, and my grammar senses go weird. whitelist = adjective noun. allow-list = verb noun. verbing the adj/noun combo feels okay, but verbing a verb/noun is weird. And just using "allowed" and "denied" doesn't impart whether it refers to a _single_ instance or a _list_ of instances. But that's all fine. The change is easy to do and is more descriptive even if I can't find terms that don't collide with my internal grammar checker. ;) -- Kees Cook _______________________________________________ Ksummit-discuss mailing list Ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ksummit-discuss