[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.0.98.0706201601100.3593@woody.linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 16:04:22 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Ian McDonald <ian.mcdonald@...di.co.nz>
cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
"Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...ibm.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>,
Bj?rn Steinbrink <B.Steinbrink@....de>,
William Cohen <wcohen@...hat.com>,
"S. P. Prasanna" <prasanna@...ibm.com>,
Antonino Daplas <adaplas@...il.com>,
Olaf Hering <olaf@...fle.de>, Ville Syrj?l? <syrjala@....fi>,
Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org>,
Rudolf Marek <r.marek@...embler.cz>,
Soeren Sonnenburg <kernel@....de>,
Michal Piotrowski <michal.k.k.piotrowski@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [1/2] 2.6.22-rc5: known regressions with patches
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> There's just no *point*.
Put another way: we lived without DEBUG_RODATA for fifteen years, why
should we now start adding complexity to work around code that doesn't
accept the (fairly small) debugging it gives?
Has anybody actually found a bug using it?
As far as I know, the biggest reason to use DEBUG_RODATA is
(a) Hey, it's a cheap way to check one thing
(b) An added layer of security (which it's not that great for, but it
might make sense to make it more of a real security feature).
and neither of them really seems to say "let's add more code to other
pieces of the kernel to work around it" to me.
Linus
-
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