linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] locks: export device name

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]

Date:	Thu, 16 Feb 2012 23:37:11 +0100
From:	Davidlohr Bueso <dave@....org>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
	Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] locks: export device name

On Wed, 2012-02-15 at 12:39 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 07:42:30 -0500
> "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org> wrote:
> 
> > > > Perhaps safest would be to replace /proc/locks by another interface and
> > > > deprecate this one.
> > > 
> > > If exporting the name in the current /proc/locks file is out of the
> > > question, then IMHO I don't think it would be worth adding a new
> > > interface just for such a small change.
> > 
> > OK.
> > 
> > If you want to just change this over, I guess the thing to do would be
> > to stick something in feature-removal-schedule.txt saying "we'll switch
> > this in 2 years" (or however long you think before there are
> > realistically no more lslk users left), then do it then.
> > 
> > Switching to a new api would be better as we could warn users of the old
> > api then.  Maybe it'd be worth it if there was some other change we'd
> > been wanting to make?   Can't think of anything off the top of my head.
> > 
> > We may be adding more lock types--will lslk and lslocks handle that
> > gracefully?
> 
> Adding a whole new interface is pretty attractive.  It lets us get it
> right this time.  In particular, something which is extensible given
> certain simple rules.  As we've learned, the current /proc/locks didn't
> get that right!

Ok, however I'm a bit confused on what you mean by extensible; since
what we decide to export to userspace is pretty much permanent, how can
we change (extend) it later? We'd pretty much be running into
the /proc/locks situation now.

> 
> We can eventually remove the old code - it may take longer than two
> years, but whatever.  If we go this way, we should arrange for the
> kernel to emit a warning (printk_once) into the logs the first time
> someone accesses the old file.  This will help to prompt people to
> migrate off the deprecated interface.  After a while, we can add a
> config option to make the old interface go away.  Distros will start to
> disable the feature.  Later, we zap it altogether.

Kind if like what was done with the /proc/x/oom_adj interface.

--
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/