linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv2 0/4] scsi: export and clean up headers

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: <20091004111626.GA17057@redhat.com>
Date:	Sun, 4 Oct 2009 13:16:26 +0200
From:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:	Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
Cc:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
	linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@...asas.com>,
	Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 0/4] scsi: export and clean up headers

On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 09:15:55AM +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 08:43:47AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 12:33:53PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > This implements a minor cleanup of exported scsi headers,
> > > and adds export of headers that are de-facto used by userspace.
> > > The patches are on top of 2.6.32-rc1.
> > > Can these be queued for 2.6.32?
> > > Thanks.
> > 
> > Before we do anything in this area we need to find an agreement who
> > owns /usr/include/scsi/ .  Right now that's glibc, and if we want to
> > change it to the kernel headers we need to find a transition agreement
> > with the glibc maintainer (aka mostly Uli).
> 
> The scsi headers are exported. So it does not matter if glibc or any
> other libc for that amtter uses the headers or not.
> Exported headers has some rules to follow and scsi are no exception here.
> 
> Now if we get the scsi headers in good shape then and only then we can 
> go to glibc people and tell them that we have a better set of scsi headers
> than they have.
> 
> Postponing updates to the exported scsi headers just beacause we do not
> have any users of them at the moment is the wrong thing to do.
> We should rather use the opportunity to streamline the exported headers
> so we have a superior set of headers to offer.
> 
> 	Sam

Ulrich, does it create problems for you if we fix kernel headers for scsi?
Does it make your life easier?

-- 
MST
--
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/