linux-kernel - Re: [WTF] utterly tasteless ABI in hfi1 (around ->write()/->write

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: <CA+55aFxzJcBFG758ZD5E=c8m8G5WUhyPXRr1fTH+PgBJeqsMcQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 16 Mar 2016 09:36:46 -0700
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>
Cc:	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Mike Marciniszyn <infinipath@...el.com>,
	"linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Dennis Dalessandro <dennis.dalessandro@...el.com>,
	ira weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>,
	Jubin John <jubin.john@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [WTF] utterly tasteless ABI in hfi1 (around ->write()/->write_iter())

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 8:46 AM, Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> If we want to maintain back compatibility, then the qib driver has to
> maintain this interface. We could possibly do a new one as well, but we
> can't remove this one.

We've broken more important driver ABI's before - all the nasty X stuff.

Now, the X people did learn their lesson, and it hasn't happened
lately (thank Gods!), but quite frankly, some shit-for-brains
hardware-specific config interface for a rdma device that basically
nobody uses is a _lot_ less important than X ever was.

So I don't care one whit if we break it, and it's not the kind of
backwards compatibility the kernel should worry about. There are
exactly zero regular users of this interface. I assume that people who
use this thing are *so* deeply technical that they can take care of
themselves. And it really is a completely broken interface.

I might be proven wrong, and somebody's dear old grandma ends up
complaining about a new kernel breaking her configuration, and in that
case we'd have to revert anything that causes that breakage. But I
suspect I'm not wrong.

                  Linus