linux-kernel - Re: VT console need rewrite

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:	Sun, 28 Nov 2010 09:05:44 -0500
From:	"jonsmirl@...il.com" <jonsmirl@...il.com>
To:	microcai@...oraproject.org
Cc:	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-console@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: VT console need rewrite

On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 8:42 AM, Microcai <microcai@...oraproject.org> wrote:
> 在 2010-11-28日的 08:24 -0500，Theodore Tso写道：
>> On Nov 28, 2010, at 5:57 AM, Microcai wrote:
>>
>> > Hi, there
>> >
>> >     I'm implementing the UNICODE font of the framebuffer console, (see
>> > http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/11/26/50 in case you do not got my email). But
>> > current vt code is too bugy, too many direct assumes about vt buffer,
>> > This makes me so hard to hack.  There is TODO telling me to add UNICODE
>> > support, but no room for such code, that's why my patch is so tricky.
>> >
>> >     And the code itself, if you'll excuse me, it isn't as beautiful as rest
>> > of the kernel.
>> >     So, it really really need a clean rewrite.I'm ganna take is hard job.
>> >     And, please tell me if is worth to do so.
>>
>> Yes, the console is code is very old.   But please be aware that lots of code (both in the kernel and in userspace) has dependencies upon how the code behaves.   So changing it in a way that does not break backwards compatibility is hard.  i.e., it is hard to hack for a reason.
>>
>> I would recommend an incremental rewrite (i.e., one patch at a time), as opposed to a rewrite from scratch.   Because people will want to be assured that things haven't broken in a horrible way as a result of a complete rewrite...
>>
>> -- Ted
>>
>
> Yeah, I'd also like to rewrite it incrementally. But... who will accept
> that incrementally patch ? It just seems that incremental patch will be
> horrible at the beginning...... It will be discard without a
> reason .....

You can use CONFIG_VT to remove the entire VT subsystem. It might be
easier for you to write an alternative VT system that could be enabled
with a different flag.

The VT system is very old code from the earliest days of Linux.
Thousands of things depend on it both in the kernel and user space. It
will be very hard to make significant changes to it that don't break
lots of dependent code.

Another model to consider... Remove the VT subsystem. Replace it will
a Unicode VT system built in user space. Using the existing kernel
code, leave a single user console in the kernel that would only be
used for system maintenance. Normal users would never see this console
unless their system was really messed up.



>
>
> --
> 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/
>



-- 
Jon Smirl
jonsmirl@...il.com
--
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/