linux-kernel - Re: Linux 3.3-rc4

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: <CA+55aFzVyr_U0-2Df2bqcX7G6DvkEGp=1N+ck4=EHuq=NY0Wkw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 20 Feb 2012 20:17:32 -0800
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Ian Kent <raven@...maw.net>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, thomas@...3r.de,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Linux 3.3-rc4

On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 8:02 PM, Ian Kent <raven@...maw.net> wrote:
>
> It doesn't but changing it for exiting binaries will break existing
> binaries that use a workaround.

What existing binaries?

> I'm proposing this because the systemd folks were happy to do it this
> way. But if you would like any other existing user space users to change
> to using a correctly sized packet then, yes, it isn't what you want to
> happen.

Existing binaries *do* use the correct size packet - it's the correct
size for native x86-32!

It's our x86-64 compat layer that is wrong. It's a clear bug. Nothing else.

We don't start making up new interfaces because we have clear bugs: we
fix the damn bugs.

How could you even sanely do "workarounds"? A x86-32 binary shouldn't
even be able to *tell* that the kernel is 64-bit. And if it does that
somehow, we should fix that too!

                       Linus
--
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/