linux-kernel - Re: linux-3.10-rc1 procfs interface breaks vmware, eicon, fio .... any fix?

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAAJw_ZseY94_u_w=P43VeUE2gNZ1qEe9Dpon3q3BEG=MPNp67w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 13 May 2013 11:28:30 +0800
From:	Jeff Chua <jeff.chua.linux@...il.com>
To:	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc:	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-3.10-rc1 procfs interface breaks vmware, eicon, fio ....
 any fix?

> And now you have a chutzpah to come and
complain about that? Better yet, we are expected to be working on
fixing those?

Al,

Complaining about something that I can't fix, yep. But asking you to
fix those, nop! That's not my intent. All I'm trying to say is there's
too many out there who don't care about linux-next until the vanilla
version came out and then everyone (may be just me) complained that it
doesn't work anymore, So, would it be reasonable to allow the
old-method to still function may be via CONFIG_OLD_PROCFS but warning
that the old interface should not be used anymore. That's to allow
"me" to continue to be able to work on the latest linux-3.10.0-rc1
while waiting for someone to fix those old modules. Reasonable?

Thanks,
Jeff

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 10:04 AM, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 08:19:46AM +0800, Jeff Chua wrote:
>> Anyone on lkml working on patches for vmware to make it run on
>> Linux-3.10-rc1? The recent change in procfs interface breaks vmware,
>> diva/eicon and fio modules.
>>
>> Every modules is now broken and needs to be reworked. Is there a more
>> subtle way to handle this like give more time to allow developers to
>> handle the move rather than killing off the "tranditional" procfs
>> access
>
> I might feel bad about those, if not for one thing - their authors
> had explicitly chosen to keep them out of tree and did not bother
> to watch what was going on in linux-next - these changes had been
> there for quite a while.  And now you have a chutzpah to come and
> complain about that?  Better yet, we are expected to be working on
> fixing those?  Really?  It's not a rethorical question - I seriously
> want to know whether I'd misparsed what you meant to say.
--
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/