linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] staging/android: change IOCTLs opcode after ABI change

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:	Fri, 11 Mar 2016 14:00:09 -0800
From:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:	Gustavo Padovan <gustavo@...ovan.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
	dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
	Daniel Stone <daniels@...labora.com>,
	Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>,
	Riley Andrews <riandrews@...roid.com>,
	Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>,
	Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>,
	Greg Hackmann <ghackmann@...gle.com>,
	John Harrison <John.C.Harrison@...el.com>,
	Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>,
	Gustavo Padovan <gustavo.padovan@...labora.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging/android: change IOCTLs opcode after ABI change

On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 07:42:43PM -0300, Gustavo Padovan wrote:
> From: Gustavo Padovan <gustavo.padovan@...labora.co.uk>
> 
> Burn the old opcode to avoid any potential old userspace running the old
> API to get weird errors. Changing the opcodes will make them fail right
> away.
> 
> This is just a precaution, there no upstream users of these interfaces
> yet and the only user is Android, but we don't expect anyone trying to
> run android userspace and all it dependencies on top of upstream kernels.
> 
> Moreover Android should be converted to use upstream sync_files.
> 
> Suggested-by: Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>
> Signed-off-by: Gustavo Padovan <gustavo.padovan@...labora.co.uk>
> ---
>  drivers/staging/android/uapi/sync.h | 11 +++++++++--
>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

Where does this belong in this patch series?  Before it?  After it?  In
the middle?

Please resend the whole series, gather up all of the reviewed and
signed-off-by markings from everyone involved, and I'll be glad to apply
them.

thanks,

greg k-h