[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5552454C.8010702@zytor.com>
Date: Tue, 12 May 2015 11:24:12 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
CC: Alex Henrie <alexhenrie24@...il.com>,
One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Doug Johnson <dougvj@...il.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@...onical.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86: Preserve iopl on fork and execve
On 05/12/2015 08:13 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 11:40 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
>>
>> - Nothing actually broke that people cared about in the last 2.5
>> years, thus this might be one of the (very very rare) cases where
>> preserving a breakage is the right thing to do.
>
> Indeed. The Linux "no regressions" rule is not about some theoretical
> "the ABI changed". It's about actual observed regressions.
>
> So if we can improve the ABI without any user program or workflow
> breaking, that's fine.
>
But Linus, that would break dominix... ;)
-hpa
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists