linux-kernel - Re: Linux 2.6.23-rc9 and a heads-up for the 2.6.24 series..

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: <200710080044.49883.alistair@devzero.co.uk>
Date:	Mon, 8 Oct 2007 00:44:49 +0100
From:	Alistair John Strachan <alistair@...zero.co.uk>
To:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:	Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.23-rc9 and a heads-up for the 2.6.24 series..

On Friday 05 October 2007 09:32:40 you wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Oct 2007, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> > > > cp: cannot stat `arch/x86_64/boot/bzImage': No such file or directory
> > > >
> > > > Obviously, this file has moved to arch/x86/boot, but it seems like
> > > > possibly unnecessary breakage. I've been copying bzImage for years
> > > > from arch/x86_64/boot, and I'm sure there's a handful of scripts
> > > > (other than Debian's kernel-image) doing this too.
> > > >
> > > > For now, I hacked the tool[1]. Maybe, if we care, a symlink could be
> > > > set up between arch/x86/boot and arch/$ARCH/boot ? Or would papering
> > > > over this be more trouble than it's worth?
> > >
> > > yeah, a symlink is the right solution i think. Our first-step goal is
> > > to make the switchover seamless for all practical purposes, and a
> > > compatibility symlink in arch/i386/boot/ will not hurt. (we shouldnt
> > > worry about the really old zImage target though)
> >
> > But when can we then get rid of it?
> > This is a simple question about when we take the noise..
> > And right now people know we are shifting to x86 - so it makes
> > sense to let the dependent userspace tools take the pain now and not
> > later.
> >
> > Starting to fill up a build kernel with symlinks for compatibility with
> > random progarms seems to be the wrong approach.
> >
> > 	Sam - that dislike especially the asm symlink
>
> Sam,
>
> I completely agree with you, but we want to keep the migration noise
> as low as possible. Adding the symlink right now along with an entry
> into features-removal.txt (6 month grace period) allows a smoother
> transition. The distro folks should better get their gear together
> until then.

I'll certainly file a bug report with the Debian BTS, but the fix will 
probably involve something as abortive as my original patch.

How did the PPC merge handle this? I can't see any similar hacks in 
kernel-image for these architectures.

-- 
Cheers,
Alistair.

137/1 Warrender Park Road, Edinburgh, UK.
-
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/