linux-kernel - Re: UNIX Compatibility

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: <25621.1306357572@localhost>
Date:	Wed, 25 May 2011 17:06:12 -0400
From:	Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
To:	"Ted Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
Cc:	Michael Witten <mfwitten@...il.com>,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
	Richard Yao <ryao@...sunysb.edu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: UNIX Compatibility

On Wed, 25 May 2011 10:36:02 EDT, "Ted Ts'o" said:

> And of course, the supreme irony is that if your OS is encumbered with
> AT&T copyrighted code, you can use the Unix trademark even if you are
> not conformant to the Single Unix Specification.  (There's an escape
> clause for AT&T derived-Unix systems, which are automatically "Unix"
> even if they fail the SUS.)
> 
> Given all of that, what _use_ is the Single Unix Specification at this
> point?  What's the _point_?

We're pretty shameless in mugging other operating systems for good new ideas
(witness the recent patches stealing SEEK_HOLE and SEEK_DATA from Solaris), but
most of the time, the neat stuff like that isn't part of SUS anyhow, because only
one or two Unix-derived systems implemented the function.

Single most useful thing left in SUS?  The few places we're *really* divergent from SUS,
we can usually go back and read the SUS spec for the function in question and remind
ourself that yes, we diverged for a reason - the spec was on total crack. :)

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped