linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH 0/8][RFC] IO latency/throughput fixes

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]

Date:	Mon, 6 Apr 2009 15:25:36 -0700
From:	"Hua Zhong" <hzhong@...il.com>
To:	"'Ray Lee'" <ray-lk@...rabbit.org>
Cc:	"'Theodore Tso'" <tytso@....edu>,
	"'Linus Torvalds'" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"'Jens Axboe'" <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
	"'Linux Kernel Mailing List'" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 0/8][RFC] IO latency/throughput fixes

> Speaking as another embedded Linux guy, I don't update kernels on my
> embedded platforms willy-nilly, nor do I design a library that relies
> upon some default behavior without specifying it explicitly. That's
> just one of the prices of doing embedded development.
> 
> Your argument seems to be that someone may be relying upon default
> kernel behavior and, at the same time, is willing to continually
> upgrade their kernel. I'd argue that person is, y'know, nuts. If
> they're willing to upgrade their kernel on something that has that
> stringent of requirements, then they should be willing to force a
> mount option at the same time.

You are implying that if someone upgrades their kernel, then he must 
1) upgrade it continuously and 2) without any scrutiny. Both are untrue.

There are certain things people expect from the kernel, such as 
no ABI changes. To me ext3 default option falls into this category.

And even if they are nuts, you can't prove they don't exist, especially
given how many software already depends on the ordered mode.

You also conveniently forgot to quote my question about security. Both
are valid questions, not something I just totally made up.

> If they're willing to upgrade their kernel blindly, then they
> shouldn't be doing embedded development.

Linus once said that if you don't understand "not breaking user space" then
you should not be doing kernel development. Or something to that extent.

--
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/