linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] Performance Counters for Linux

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: <2c0942db0906111022s442be8fbl47656a60e2619b9d@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 11 Jun 2009 10:22:23 -0700
From:	Ray Lee <ray-lk@...rabbit.org>
To:	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Stephane Eranian <eranian@...glemail.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Performance Counters for Linux

On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 10:12 AM, Al Viro<viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 10:05:02AM -0700, Ray Lee wrote:
>> Packagers are quite used to taking a single source tree and building
>> multiple packages out of it. This isn't rocket science. It's the
>> multiple separate trees that need to be released in lock-step that are
>> headaches.
>
> Wrong.  Remember the fun bisecting around sysfs/udev incompatible change?
> Oops, went back past the cutoff line, got to downgrade udev for the next
> boot.  Oh, it oopses?  Too fucking bad, can't just boot the previous kernel,
> should've kept _two_ working ones so that with any userland state we could
> come back to working system.
>
> This isn't a rocket science, this is a goddamn load of horse manure.
> Packages that need to be updated in the lock-step *are* headaches from
> hell when you are trying to do development.  Even if you have all of
> them already built.

Well, welcome to our new world order of Xorg and udev and hal. I have
had to deal with bisecting the problem just as you have, and dealt
with the fallout.

The choices are:

 - Don't bisect, throw up your hands and hope someone else deals with it

 - keep the old versions around for installs, as you point out (I do
this regularly)

 - build all the packages every time

The last one is the most reasonable and I'd argue it's the right thing
to do. But it's tricky with multiple source trees -- which version of
udev works with this kernel again? A single source tree for packages
that are kept in lock-step, as so many seem to be, makes that a hell
of a lot easier on me.

But perhaps I'm an odd-ball.

I think your complaint is "Why the hell can't they have a stable ABI?"
Probably for the same reason anything so close to the hardware hasn't
had a stable ABI. I'm sure udev/hal/Xorg will have a stable
kernel-userland interface any day now. Once they do, I'm sure
everything else that touches the hardware so intimately will have a
stable ABI too.

Sheesh.
--
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/