| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <20071004125916.dbe4fd13.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 12:59:16 -0700 From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> To: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@....uio.no> Cc: drzeus-list@...eus.cx, staubach@...hat.com, nfsv4@...ux-nfs.org, nfs@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [NFS] What's slated for inclusion in 2.6.24-rc1 from the NFS client git tree... On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 15:16:03 -0400 Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@....uio.no> wrote: > > > > > > That would be perfect. It can even be in non-legacy mode by default, > > > just as long as you can go back to the old behaviour when/if you run > > > into a non-LFS application. > > > > > > > Wouldn't a mount option be better? > > I suppose that might be OK if you know that the 32-bit legacy > applications will only touch one or two servers, but that sounds like a > niche thing. > > On the downside, forcing all those people who have portable 64-bit aware > applications to upgrade their version of mount just in order to have > stat64() work correctly seems unnecessarily complicated. I'd prefer not > to have to do that unless someone comes up with a good reason why we > must. Confused. You don't need to modify mount(8) when adding a new mount option? - 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