linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 13/20] gpio: uapi: document uAPI v1 as deprecated

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:   Tue, 22 Sep 2020 09:49:11 +0200
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:     Kent Gibson <warthog618@...il.com>
Cc:     "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 13/20] gpio: uapi: document uAPI v1 as deprecated

On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 4:36 AM Kent Gibson <warthog618@...il.com> wrote:
>  /*
>   *  ABI v1
> + *
> + * This version of the ABI is deprecated and will be removed in the future.
> + * Use the latest version of the ABI, defined above, instead.
>   */

How intentional is the wording here? It seems unrealistic that the v1 ABI
would be removed any time soon if there are existing users and applications
cannot yet rely on v2 to be present in all kernels, so it sounds like a hollow
threat.

At the same time I can see that telling users it will be removed can lead to
them moving on to the new version more quickly, so maybe a hollow threat
is in fact appropriate here ;-)

      Arnd