linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 01/11] tools/nolibc: remove the old sys

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: <20230715085942.GB24086@1wt.eu>
Date:   Sat, 15 Jul 2023 10:59:42 +0200
From:   Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
To:     Zhangjin Wu <falcon@...ylab.org>
Cc:     arnd@...db.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, thomas@...ch.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 01/11] tools/nolibc: remove the old sys_stat support

Hi Zhangjin,

On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 05:16:34PM +0800, Zhangjin Wu wrote:
> __NR_statx has been added from v4.10:
> 
>     commit a528d35e8bfc ("statx: Add a system call to make enhanced file info available")
> 
> It has been supported by all of the platforms since at least from v4.20
> and glibc 2.28.
> 
> Let's remove the old arch related and dependent sys_stat support
> completely.
> 
> This is friendly to the future new architecture porting.

As I previously said, I'd like that we at least preserve compatibility
with supported stable branches. 4.14 and 4.19 are still supported, so
does this mean that if I rebuild my preinit against the updated nolibc
it will fail to boot on such older systems for the archs that we support?

Because if it means that in order to support all currently active
kernels, one must only build from an older copy of the lib, that becomes
a disservice to its development and usage. Thus if you checked that aarch64,
arm, i386, mips, riscv, s390 and x86_64 had already adopted statx by 4.14,
then I'm fine and we can drop stat(), but then it must be mentioned in
the commit message, because here it's not explicit.

Thanks!
Willy