Re: [PATCH 09/12] qemu-options: Replace the word 'blacklist'

[Philippe Mathieu-Daudé]

On 2/3/21 11:25 AM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 02, 2021 at 09:58:21PM +0100, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
>> Follow the inclusive terminology from the "Conscious Language in your
>> Open Source Projects" guidelines [*] and replace the word "blacklist"
>> appropriately.
>>
>> [*] https://github.com/conscious-lang/conscious-lang-docs/blob/main/faq.md
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@redhat.com>
>> ---
>>  qemu-options.hx | 4 ++--
>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/qemu-options.hx b/qemu-options.hx
>> index d0410f05125..75997ee2ea6 100644
>> --- a/qemu-options.hx
>> +++ b/qemu-options.hx
>> @@ -4275,11 +4275,11 @@ DEF("sandbox", HAS_ARG, QEMU_OPTION_sandbox, \
>>      "                    by the kernel, but typically no longer used by 
>> modern\n" \
>>      "                    C library implementations.\n" \
>>      "                use 'elevateprivileges' to allow or deny QEMU process 
>> to elevate\n" \
>> -    "                    its privileges by blacklisting all set*uid|gid 
>> system calls.\n" \
>> +    "                    its privileges by denylisting all set*uid|gid 
>> system calls.\n" \
> 
> The original description is a bit wierd in how it reads/explains it, so
> I think it needs bigger changes:
> 
>     "                use 'elevateprivileges' to allow or deny the QEMU 
> process ability
>     "                to elevate privileges using set*uid|gid system calls.\n" 
> \
> 
>>      "                    The value 'children' will deny set*uid|gid system 
>> calls for\n" \
>>      "                    main QEMU process but will allow forks and execves 
>> to run unprivileged\n" \
>>      "                use 'spawn' to avoid QEMU to spawn new threads or 
>> processes by\n" \
>> -    "                     blacklisting *fork and execve\n" \
>> +    "                     denylisting *fork and execve\n" \
> 
> denylisting is a very strange term to use - its not really a word IMHO.
> Better as
> 
>     "                     preventing *fork and execve\n" \
> 
> or
> 
>     "                     blocking *fork and execve\n" \

While 'preventing' sounds nicer, 'blocking' is simpler to understand
from a technical English speaker, so I took your 2nd suggestion, thanks.