netdev - Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] xfrm: add x86 CONFIG

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:	Thu, 08 Apr 2010 11:44:43 +0200
From:	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC:	fw@...len.de, netdev@...r.kernel.org, johannes@...solutions.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] xfrm: add x86 CONFIG_COMPAT support

David Miller wrote:
> From: Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
> Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2010 15:45:51 +0200
> 
>> Florian Westphal wrote:
>>> David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
>>>> From: Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
>>>> Date: Tue,  6 Apr 2010 00:27:07 +0200
>>> [..]
>>>
>>>>> I sent a patch that solved this by adding a sys_compat_write syscall
>>>>> and a ->compat_aio_write() to struct file_operations to the
>>>>> vfs mailing list, but that patch was ignored by the vfs people,
>>>>> and the x86 folks did not exactly like the idea either.
>>>>>
>>>>> So this leaves three alternatives:
>>>>> 1 - drop the whole idea and keep the current status.
>>>>> 2 - Add new structure definitions (with new numbering) that would work
>>>>>     everywhere, keep the old ones for backwards compatibility (This
>>>>>     was suggested by Arnd Bergmann).
>> Given that there is only a quite small number of users of this
>> interface, that would in my opinion be the best way.
> 
> Can you explain that line of reasoning?
> 
> It's not that there are only "3 or 4 tools" using these interfaces,
> it's the fact that 32-bit binaries of those tools are on millions and
> millions of systems out there.

Yeah, but they're currently not working if used on 64 bit hosts,
so I don't think its unreasonable to consider just the number of
tools that need to be fixed. Either the kernel or the userspace
programs have to be updated either way.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html