linux-kernel - Re: kdbus: to merge or not to merge?

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: <5286070.NYrIjcpPS3@merkaba>
Date:	Thu, 25 Jun 2015 08:05:58 +0200
From:	Martin Steigerwald <martin@...htvoll.de>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	Richard Weinberger <richard.weinberger@...il.com>,
	Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	David Herrmann <dh.herrmann@...il.com>,
	Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@...ndz.org>,
	Havoc Pennington <havoc.pennington@...il.com>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Tom Gundersen <teg@...m.no>, Daniel Mack <daniel@...que.org>
Subject: Re: kdbus: to merge or not to merge?

Am Donnerstag, 25. Juni 2015, 08:01:35 schrieb Martin Steigerwald:
> Am Mittwoch, 24. Juni 2015, 19:20:27 schrieb Linus Torvalds:
> > On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 7:14 PM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
> 
> wrote:
> > > I don't think it will complicate things even if the API changes. The
> > > distros will have to deal with that fall out. Mainline only cares
> > > about
> > > its own regressions. But any API changes would only be done for good
> > > reasons, and give the distros an excuse to fix whatever was done wrong
> > > in the first place.
> > 
> > I don't think that's true.
> > 
> > Realistically, every single kernel developer tends to work on a
> > machine with some random distro. If that developer cannot compile his
> > own kernel because his distro stops working, or has to use some
> > "kdbus=0" switch to turn off the kernel kdbus and (hopefuly) the
> > distro just switches to the legacy user mode bus, then for that
> > developer, merging and enabling incompatible kdbus implementation is
> > basically a regression.
> > 
> > We've seen this before. We end up stuck with the ABI of whatever user
> > land applications. It doesn't matter where that ABI came from.
> > 
> > I do agree that distro's that want to enable kdbus before any agreed
> > version has been merged would get to also act as guinea pigs and do
> > their own QA, and handle fallout from whatever problems they encounter
> > etc. That part might be good. But I don't think we really end up
> > having the option to make up some incompatible kdbus ABI
> > after-the-fact.
> 
> Linus, so is that a recommendation to the distros to be careful to put
> kdbus into the distro kernel right now and probably better defer it or
> are you thinking that the ABI of kdbus already is suitable for merging
> and you see no issues to merge a kdbus with the ABI it currently has, but
> probably otherwise improved?

Or, do you think, that there is a different option to handle this then the 
both I outlined above?

-- 
Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de
GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA  B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7
--
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/