linux-kernel - Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH RFC] xen-block: correctly define structures in public headers

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <52A8919E.2000805@citrix.com>
Date:	Wed, 11 Dec 2013 17:23:58 +0100
From:	Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@...rix.com>
To:	Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@...citrix.com>,
	Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
CC:	Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@...rix.com>,
	David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>,
	Julien Grall <julien.grall@...aro.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>,
	Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH RFC] xen-block: correctly define structures
 in public headers

On 11/12/13 17:18, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Dec 2013, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>>>> If Konrad and Boris agree that breaking the kernel's ABI in this way is
>>>> acceptable in this specific case, I'll defer to them.
>>>
>>> My opinion as Xen on ARM hypervisor maintainer is that this is the right
>>> thing to do in this case.
>>
>> Heh. If somebody can guarantee me that (by testing the right variants and
>> mentioning this in the git commit) that this does not break x86, then
>> I am fine.
>>
>> And by 'break x86' I mean that this combination works:
>>  32-bit domU on 64-bit dom0
>>  64-bit domU on 32-bit dom0
>>
>> And perhaps also the obvious:
>>  64-bit domU on 64-bit dom0
>>  32-bit domU on 32-bit dom0
>>
>> Since the xen-blkback has its own version of the structs there is no
>> need to change change newer and older version of it.
>>
>> As long as that works I am OK sticking it in.
>>
>> I think from the ARM perspective it is still in 'experimental' phase
>> so anything goes to make it work under ARM.
> 
> 
> Roger, can you please test this patch on x86 as suggested by Konrad and
> confirm that it doesn't break anything?

This is not the right patch, the right one is the one posted by Julien:

http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=138608528604584&w=2

--
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/