linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] staging/android: add flags member to sync ioctl structs

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]

Date:	Fri, 4 Mar 2016 17:40:29 +0100
From:	Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>
To:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:	Gustavo Padovan <gustavo@...ovan.org>, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
	Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>,
	Daniel Stone <daniels@...labora.com>,
	Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>,
	Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>,
	Riley Andrews <riandrews@...roid.com>,
	dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>,
	Greg Hackmann <ghackmann@...gle.com>,
	Gustavo Padovan <gustavo.padovan@...labora.co.uk>,
	John Harrison <John.C.Harrison@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging/android: add flags member to sync ioctl structs

On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 08:17:14AM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 11:37:17AM -0300, Gustavo Padovan wrote:
> > From: Gustavo Padovan <gustavo.padovan@...labora.co.uk>
> > 
> > Play safe and add flags member to all structs. So we don't need to
> > break API or create new IOCTL in the future if new features that requires
> > flags arises.
> > 
> > v2: check if flags are valid (zero, in this case)
> > 
> > v3: return -EINVAL if flags are not zero'ed
> > 
> > v4: add padding for 64-bit alignment
> > 
> > v5: rebase to use only stacked sync_file_info
> 
> Why are these vX things here in the changelog?

Because this is drm and we're special ;-)

> And you just broke all existing userspace users of this code, why are
> you allowed to do that?
> 
> not ok...

We could do fence2.h if you absolutely insist and just forget about the
current one, but that seemed silly. Like Gustavo said, everyone who
actually cares about this stuff is perfectly fine with this. And there's
not a single user of this in upstream anyway, so the only trees we could
break are vendor trees with massive amounts of additional stuff.

Is that reasonable ok for you, or do you insist we do a fences2.h without
going through staging ? ;-)

Thanks, Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch