linux-kernel - Re: Linux 2.6.21

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, 27 Apr 2007 17:36:29 -0400
From:	Bill Davidsen <davidsen@....com>
To:	Stephen.Clark@...lark.us
CC:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.21

Stephen Clark wrote:

> If hardware worked in the previous version of the kernel can't users expect
> the same hardware to work in this kernel?
> 
Failure of that assumption is the heart of the whole "regression" 
discussion. It's not limited to hardware, kernel security might be an 
issue, some network protocols might work faster and less reliably, etc.

Kernel behavior changes sometimes totally break user software which 
makes unwarranted assumptions. That's not a regression, although users 
may see it that way. When a change in fork() changed the 
child-runs-first behavior, many programs broke, as was true with 
threading changes. Bad reliability is the reward for bad code, but if a 
kernel change makes that obvious some people think it's a regression.

-- 
Bill Davidsen <davidsen@....com>
   "We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked."  - from Slashdot
-
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/