linux-kernel - Re: Linux 2.6.22-rc1

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]

Message-ID: <4648BE31.3020800@garzik.org>
Date:	Mon, 14 May 2007 15:53:21 -0400
From:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
To:	Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org>
CC:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Antonino Ingargiola <tritemio@...il.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.22-rc1

Jean Delvare wrote:
> On Mon, 14 May 2007 11:43:45 -0700 (PDT), Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 May 2007, Jean Delvare wrote:
>>> Sure, we don't allow that. Except for xfsprogs in 2.6.1, procps in
>>> 2.6.4, oprofile in 2.6.13 and udev in 2.6.19, of course.
>> And we really complained about it! The oprofile thing should be fixed, 
>> btw, and yeah,if udev breaks any more, I'll have to stop taking patches 
>> from Greg. That thing has been a disaster, and everybody involved should 
>> be ashamed and now hopefully *very* aware of the fact that we don't break 
>> user-level interfaces.
>>
>> (Right now, I suspect we may have a loop setup regression. Not sure)
> 
> While I'm all for keeping things relatively stable and not asking the
> user to constantly upgrade user-space, I believe that we just can't
> promise to never break user-level interfaces while keeping the
> development pace we have right now. We can promise to grant people
> significant delay before we drop compatibility options, but "forever"
> doesn't scale.
> 
> If you really want to enforce the "never" rule, be prepared to either
> see development slow down and finally come to a stop, or see the code
> become unmaintainable and insecure and nobody is longer willing to work
> on it.

Why do you think we -stopped- enforcing such a rule?   :)

It's been the rule throughout Linux's history.  syscalls from early 
Linux binaries should still work, for example.

	Jeff



-
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/