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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:44:27 +0100 From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> To: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi> Cc: John Johansen <john.johansen@...onical.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/12] AppArmor: userspace interfaces Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi> writes: > On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 6:13 PM, John Johansen > <john.johansen@...onical.com> wrote: >> The current apparmorfs interface is compatible with previous versions >> of AppArmor. The plans are to deprecate it (hence the config option >> APPARMOR_COMPAT_24) and replace it with a more sysfs style single >> entry per file interface. > > We don't usually merge compatibility code to handle ABIs that were > developed out-of-tree. Why should we treat AppArmor differently? I would say that always depends on the deployed base of the old ABI. If there's a lot of users who would get broken I think there's a good case for merging compat code (I don't know if that is or isn't the case here). A widely used distribution release with the old user land would probably count. -Andi -- ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only. -- 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