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
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Tue, 10 Nov 2009 10:21:16 -0800
From:	Stephen Hemminger <>
To:	Andi Kleen <>
Cc:	Pekka Enberg <>,
	John Johansen <>,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/12] AppArmor: userspace interfaces

On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:44:27 +0100
Andi Kleen <> wrote:

> Pekka Enberg <> writes:
> > On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 6:13 PM, John Johansen
> > <> 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.

Then the distribution can maintain a patch to add the necessary translation

It is not the upstream kernel's job to maintain compatibility with older
out of tree code.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists