linux-kernel - Re: Problems with timerfd()

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: <20070725151252.8d2d5141.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Wed, 25 Jul 2007 15:12:52 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Michael Kerrisk <mtk-manpages@....net>
Cc:	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>, drepper@...hat.com,
	stable@...nel.org
Subject: Re: Problems with timerfd()

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 20:18:51 +0200
Michael Kerrisk <mtk-manpages@....net> wrote:

> Andrew,
> 
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 08:32:29 +0200 Michael Kerrisk <mtk-manpages@....net> wrote:
> > 
> >> Andrew,
> >>
> >> The timerfd() syscall went into 2.6.22.  While writing the man page for
> >> this syscall I've found some notable limitations of the interface, and I am
> >> wondering whether you and Linus would consider having this interface fixed
> >> for 2.6.23.
> >>
> >> On the one hand, these fixes would be an ABI change, which is of course
> >> bad.  (However, as noted below, you have already accepted one of the ABI
> >> changes that I suggested into -mm, after Davide submitted a patch.)
> >>
> >> On the other hand, the interface has not yet made its way into a glibc
> >> release, and the change will not break applications.  (The 2.6.22 version
> >> of the interface would just be "broken".)
> > 
> > I think if the need is sufficient we can do this: fix it in 2.6.23 and in
> > 2.6.22.x.  That means that there will be a few broken-on-new-glibc kernels
> > out in the wild, but very few I suspect.
> 
> So I'm still not quite clear.  Can I take it from your statement above that
> the proposed ABI changes would be admissible, as long as Davide is okay
> with them?
> 

yup, I'll send that diff into Linus and -stable and see what happens.

-
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/