Re: [PATCH net-next 0/2] appletalk: move the protocol out of tree

On Tue, 16 Jun 2026 01:34:06 +0200 John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> On Mon, 2026-06-15 at 15:29 -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > This tiny series moves appletalk out of tree, to:
> > 
> >   https://github.com/linux-netdev/mod-orphan
> > 
> > Core maintainainers are unable to keep up with the rate of security
> > bug reports and fixes. Nobody seems to care about appletalk enough
> > to review the patches.  
> 
> Why would fixing these vulnerabilities be relevant? No one is going to
> expose an Apple Talk server to an untrusted network, are they? The same
> applies to hamradio and AX.25, they are all used by hobbyists in DMZ
> networks, so no one really cares about vulnerabilities in these protocols.
> 
> I find it sad that AI tools are basically used to shoot at the kernel
> to kill off features as some people are apparently getting scared by
> these AI reports and just nuke everything in a panic reaction as if it
> wouldn't just be possible to disable these protocols at compile time
> to reduce the attack surface.
> 
> > As Eric pointed out Mac OS dropped AppleTalk over a decade ago.  
> 
> That's not the point though. No one is going to use AppleTalk to network
> a Linux box to a modern macOS machine. The usefulness lies in hooking up
> a Linux box to a vintage Mac or other retro computer.
> 
> So far, one of the huge advantages of open source operating systems has
> always been that even niche use cases were supported and people could make
> use of old hardware by using open source operating systems over commercial
> offerings such as Windows or macOS.
> 
> With the advent of AI security reports, these niche use cases are more and
> more being killed off with the argument that a vulnerability in the harmradio
> code could pose a threat to a large SAP database running on a Linux enterprise
> distribution. However, if your enterprise distribution is enabling kernel
> features their customers aren't using and therefore enlarging the attack surface,
> it's more a problem of said enterprise distribution and not of these old and
> obscure network protocols.
> 
> I am trying my best to save as many classic features in the kernel as possible
> to enable retro computing but I am sometimes fearing that commercial interest
> in the kernel is taking over too much making my efforts harder every day.

We can complain about the AI slop til the cows comes home.
I don't like it, you don't like it. What difference does it make? 

If y'all have real solutions please share. Complaining about
"commercial interests" and "nuk[ing] everything in a panic reaction"
is not helpful.