linux-kernel - RE: [stable] [patch 00/69] -stable review

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 23 May 2007 07:02:29 -0400
From:	"Fortier,Vincent [Montreal]" <Vincent.Fortier1@...GC.CA>
To:	"Greg KH" <greg@...ah.com>
Cc:	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [stable] [patch 00/69] -stable review

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Greg KH [mailto:greg@...ah.com] 
> Envoyé : 22 mai 2007 23:37
> À : Fortier,Vincent [Montreal]
> 
> On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 09:28:34PM -0400, Fortier,Vincent 
> [Montreal] wrote:
> > > -----Message d'origine-----
> > > De : linux-kernel-owner@...r.kernel.org
> > > [mailto:linux-kernel-owner@...r.kernel.org] De la part de Chuck 
> > > Ebbert Envoy? : 21 mai 2007 18:24
> > > 
> > > Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > > On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 12:31:48PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > >> On Mon, 21 May 2007 12:16:12 -0700 Chris Wright 
> > > >> <chrisw@...s-sol.org> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 2.6.21.2 release.
> > > >> Gee a lot of these are fixing recently-added regressions :( ...
> > > > 
> > > > If only it would fix all of them...
> > > > 
> > > > Michal's list [1] currently contains 51 different regressions in
> > > > 2.6.21 compared to 2.6.20 (12 of them were already reported before
> > > > 2.6.21 was released).
> > > 
> > > Yeah, 2.6.21 seems awfully buggy, and patches to fix many of the 
> > > bugs haven't appeared.
> > > 
> > > Another 2.6.20 update seems to be in order...
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > If there is a new stable 2.6.20 / 2.6.21, would it be 
> possible that they both contain also this patch to keep the 
> same behaviour between 2.6.20 -> 2.6.22 kernels regarding 
> paravirt_ops GPL export?
> > 
> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=com
> > mit;h=21564fd2a3deb48200b595332f9ed4c9f311f2a7
> 
> Why?  Is there an in-kernel use for that export?

I sincerely dont know... Although:
- * NOTE: CONFIG_PARAVIRT is experimental and the paravirt_ops
- * semantics are subject to change. Hence we only do this
- * internal-only export of this, until it gets sorted out and
- * all lowlevel CPU ops used by modules are separately exported.

Makes me think there was a "good enough" reason to export instead of export GPL and that it "could" be usefull to keep the same behaviour for that same experimental feature under 2.6.20 / 2.6.21.  Although, the "until it gets sorted out" makes me think it might planned to get removed before the end of 2.6.22 

Thnx.

- vin
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/