| 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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 17:08:54 +0200 From: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com> To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>, akpm@...l.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs: Correct SuS compliance for open of large file without options On Thu, Sep 27 2007, Alan Cox wrote: > > > Its a change of a specific error return from the wrong error to the right > > > one, nothing more. Fixing the returned error gives us correct behaviour > > > according to the standards and other systems. > > > > It may still break applications. Waving some standard at them if they > > complain is unlikely to impress them. > > And our existing behaviour may well break correctly written > portable applications, and is incorrect as well. It's been that way for ages, how likely do you think that is? Not very, is my guess. Existing practice trumps standard description in my book. > Testing so far says it doesn't break anything, which is no suprise if you > apply about ten braincells to the case under consideration. Well it's not my call, just seems like a really bad idea to change the error value. You can't claim full coverage for such testing anyway, it's one of those things that people will complain about two releases later saying it broke app foo. -- Jens Axboe - 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