linux-kernel - Re: UML not maintained anymore?

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 17 Mar 2017 17:55:41 +0100
From:   Richard Weinberger <richard.weinberger@...il.com>
To:     Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Cc:     Natale Patriciello <natale.patriciello@...il.com>,
        "user-mode-linux-user@...ts.sourceforge.net" 
        <user-mode-linux-user@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: UML not maintained anymore?

On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 4:46 PM, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz> wrote:
> On Tue 2017-02-28 16:28:11, Natale Patriciello wrote:
>> It seems there is no interest in fixing bugs (such as [1]). Moreover,
>> same guest filesystem (same host os, distribution, etc.) on two
>> different machines (i7-2630 the first, i7-7700HQ the second) yield
>> different results, with crashes and corruption of filesystem in the
>> modern computer.  So, can I consider UML as a legacy thing in the Linux
>> kernel? With what I can replace it (I'm doing TCP research, and I focus
>> on the networking stack)?
>
> Well.. if it worked before and does not work now, that's a regression
> and will be fixed. Bisect would be useful.
>
> If it never worked on new CPUs, that's different situation...

Yep, a bisect would be good.
Regressions are rather easy to fix.

UML is more or less in legacy mode an I work on it purely in my very limited
spare time. That's why I don't have time to track down and solve every
single bug.

-- 
Thanks,
//richard