linux-kernel - Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH RFC] xen-block: correctly define structures in public headers

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 11 Dec 2013 16:29:51 +0000
From:	Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@...citrix.com>
To:	Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@...rix.com>
CC:	Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@...citrix.com>,
	Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
	Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@...rix.com>,
	David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>,
	Julien Grall <julien.grall@...aro.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>,
	Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH RFC] xen-block: correctly define structures
 in public headers

On Wed, 11 Dec 2013, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> On 11/12/13 17:18, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > On Tue, 3 Dec 2013, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> >>>> If Konrad and Boris agree that breaking the kernel's ABI in this way is
> >>>> acceptable in this specific case, I'll defer to them.
> >>>
> >>> My opinion as Xen on ARM hypervisor maintainer is that this is the right
> >>> thing to do in this case.
> >>
> >> Heh. If somebody can guarantee me that (by testing the right variants and
> >> mentioning this in the git commit) that this does not break x86, then
> >> I am fine.
> >>
> >> And by 'break x86' I mean that this combination works:
> >>  32-bit domU on 64-bit dom0
> >>  64-bit domU on 32-bit dom0
> >>
> >> And perhaps also the obvious:
> >>  64-bit domU on 64-bit dom0
> >>  32-bit domU on 32-bit dom0
> >>
> >> Since the xen-blkback has its own version of the structs there is no
> >> need to change change newer and older version of it.
> >>
> >> As long as that works I am OK sticking it in.
> >>
> >> I think from the ARM perspective it is still in 'experimental' phase
> >> so anything goes to make it work under ARM.
> > 
> > 
> > Roger, can you please test this patch on x86 as suggested by Konrad and
> > confirm that it doesn't break anything?
> 
> This is not the right patch, the right one is the one posted by Julien:
> 
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=138608528604584&w=2
> 

Right. In that case, Julien or Roger can you test that it doesn't break
any of the x86 configurations?