linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Revert kheaders feature

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:   Wed, 5 Feb 2020 13:35:56 -0800
From:   Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
        Michal Marek <michal.lkml@...kovi.net>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+samsung@...nel.org>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>,
        linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org,
        "open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert kheaders feature

On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 1:33 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
[snip]
> > > like the BTF approach is significantly better and said users are
> > > hopefully moving forward to it quickly, and if they can't move
> > > forward, then they're likely also not going to move forward to newer
> > > kernels either?
> >
> > I think BCC runs on a lot of upstream machines. I think the migration
> > strategy is a matter of opinion, one way is to take it out and cause some
> > pain in the hope that users/tools will migrate soon (while probably carrying
> > the reverted patches out of tree). Another is to migrate the tools first and
> > then take it out (which has its own disadvantages such as introducing even
> > more users of it while it is still upstream).
>
> Do we "know" what tools today require this, and what needs to be done to
> "fix" them?  If we don't know that, then there's no way to drop this,
> pretty much ever :(

Is there a real reason to drop it or a problem dropping this solves though?

thanks,

  - Joel