[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4DF15851.20914.243BA32B@pageexec.freemail.hu>
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 01:33:37 +0200
From: pageexec@...email.hu
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@....edu>, x86@...nel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jesper Juhl <jj@...osbits.net>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...ell.com>,
richard -rw- weinberger <richard.weinberger@...il.com>,
Mikael Pettersson <mikpe@...uu.se>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
Louis Rilling <Louis.Rilling@...labs.com>,
Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86-64, vsyscalls: Rename UNSAFE_VSYSCALLS to COMPAT_VSYSCALLS
On 9 Jun 2011 at 8:48, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * pageexec@...email.hu <pageexec@...email.hu> wrote:
>
> > On 7 Jun 2011 at 11:56, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > > Fedora was able to disable the fixed-address vdso in its newer 32-bit
> > > distro kernels because it *upgraded glibc*.
> >
> > and what happened to those apps that users statically linked against
> > the older glibc? what happened to their chroots that had dynamically
> > linked binaries with an older glibc? did you not break those either?
>
> There's two reasons why a distributor will generally not worry about
> that case:
so you went from "There was no breakage of binary compatibility." to
saying that you didn't care about it. you could have just admitted it
from the beginning.
--
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