linux-kernel - Re: Please revert 21564fd2a3deb48200b595332f9ed4c9f311f2a7

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: <4691A196.7080305@goop.org>
Date:	Sun, 08 Jul 2007 19:46:46 -0700
From:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To:	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de>
CC:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Subject: Re: Please revert 21564fd2a3deb48200b595332f9ed4c9f311f2a7

Adrian Bunk wrote:
>>> Reverting is safe since it simply re-establishes the 2.6.21 status quo.
>>>       
>> Well, not really.  It breaks any non-GPL module when CONFIG_PARAVIRT is
>> enabled, even though the same module would work fine otherwise.  That's
>> a pretty large regression.
>> ...
>>     
>
> The 2.6.21 status quo can by definition not be a regression compared
> to 2.6.21.
>   

2.6.21's behaviour was a bug.  CONFIG_PARAVIRT is not supposed to cause 
any behavioural changes.

    J
-
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/