linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sysfs: Optionally count subdirectories to support buggy applications

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+55aFwSETK6bz5-q6HMKGqnweTPuR-MA6w-19-Fto13jDU4GA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 8 Mar 2012 15:40:26 -0800
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>, Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...il.com>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Maciej Rutecki <maciej.rutecki@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sysfs: Optionally count subdirectories to support buggy applications

On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 2:18 PM, Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com> wrote:
>
> Keeping compatibility is easy enough that it looks like it is worth
> doing, but maintaining 30+ years of backwards compatibility

Stop right there.

This is *not* about some arbitrary "30-year backwards compatibility".

This is about your patch BREAKING EXISTING BINARIES.

So stop the f*&^ing around already. The patch was shown to be broken,
stop making excuses, and stop blathering.

End of story. Binary compatibility is more important than *any* of
your patches. If you continue to argue anything else or making
excuses, I'm going to ask people to just ignore your patches entirely.

Seriously. Binary compatibility is *so* important that I do not want
to have anything to do with kernel developers who don't understand
that importance. If you continue to pooh-pooh the issue, you only show
yourself to be unreliable.  Don't do it.

Dammit, I'm continually surprised by the *idiots* out there that don't
understand that binary compatibility is one of the absolute top
priorities. The *only* reason for an OS kernel existing in the first
place is to serve user-space. The kernel has no relevance on its own.
Breaking existing binaries - and then not acknowledging how horribly
bad that was - is just about the *worst* offense any kernel developer
can do.

Because that shows that they don't understand what the whole *point*
of the kernel was after all. We're not masturbating around with some
research project.  We never were. Even when Linux was young, the whole
and only point was to make a *usable* system. It's why it's not some
crazy drug-induced microkernel or other random crazy thing.

Really.

                     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/