netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] eventfd: implementation of EFD

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:	Fri, 15 Feb 2013 09:32:37 -0800
From:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Martin Sustrik <sustrik@...bpm.com>,
	Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Sha Zhengju <handai.szj@...bao.com>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
	Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>,
	Eric Wong <normalperson@...t.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] eventfd: implementation of EFD_MASK flag

On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 9:24 PM, Andrew Morton
<akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 04:42:27 +0100 Martin Sustrik <sustrik@...bpm.com> wrote:
>
>> > This is a non-back-compatible userspace interface change.  A procfs
>> > file which previously displayed
>> >
>> >     eventfd-count: nnnn
>> >
>> > can now also display
>> >
>> >     eventfd-mask: nnnn
>> >
>> > So existing userspace could misbehave.
>> >
>> > Please fully describe the proposed interface change in the changelog.
>> > That description should include the full pathname of the procfs file
>> > and example before-and-after output and a discussion of whether and why
>> > the risk to existing userspace is acceptable.
>>
>> I am not sure what the policy is here. Is not printing out the state of
>> the object acceptable way to maintain backward compatibility? If not so,
>> does new type of object require new procfs file, which, AFAIU, is the
>> only way to retain full backward compatibility?
>
> Adding a new file is the only way I can think of to preserve the API.
> But from Andy's comment is sounds like we don't have to worry a lot
> about back-compatibility.
>

I'm not even convinced there's an issue in the first place (other than
the fact that use of this feature will break old criu, regardless of
/proc changes).  The fdinfo files already vary by descriptor type.
Anything that screws up if unexpected fields are present is already
screwed.

--Andy
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html