linux-kernel - Re: 2.6.36/2.6.37: broken compatibility with userspace input-utils ?

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: <4D4075CD.8060402@teksavvy.com>
Date:	Wed, 26 Jan 2011 14:28:13 -0500
From:	Mark Lord <kernel@...savvy.com>
To:	Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@...hat.com>
CC:	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
	Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...hat.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-input@...r.kernel.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 2.6.36/2.6.37: broken compatibility with userspace input-utils
 ?

On 11-01-26 02:16 PM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
>   Hi,
> 
>>>> The check should be against concrete version (0x10000 in this case).
> 
> Stepping back: what does the version mean?
> 
> 0x10000 == 1.0 ?
> 0x10001 == 1.1 ?
> 
> Can I expect the interface stay backward compatible if only the minor revision
> changes, i.e. makes it sense to accept 1.x?
> 
> Will the major revision ever change?  Does it make sense to check the version at
> all?

As already established earlier in this thread,
by Linus Torvalds as well as by myself,
NO!

That whole "version" concept is broken and inappropriate.
Userspace should simply ignore it completely.

Cheers
--
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/