| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <1171042535.29713.96.camel@pmac.infradead.org> Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2007 17:35:35 +0000 From: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org> To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, drepper@...hat.com Subject: Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.21 On Thu, 2007-02-08 at 15:07 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > lutimesat-simplify-utime2.patch > lutimesat-extend-do_utimes-with-flags.patch > lutimesat-actual-syscall-and-wire-up-on-i386.patch > > Do we want this? Ulrich says so. Will merge, I guess. I would strongly recommend that in the general case, you don't merge new system calls unless the corresponding compat_ system call is implemented. This makes sure that people adding system calls will design the API for the new system call appropriately, rather than trying to implement compat support as an afterthought and only then realising that they wish the original had been done differently. We've seen examples of this where it would have been _trivial_ to adjust the API slightly to make compat syscalls a non-issue, but the developer just didn't _think_ about it until the syscall was set in stone. This new system call seems to need compat_ support but lacks it, so I would suggest you shouldn't merge it just yet. -- dwmw2 - 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists