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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2022 10:27:30 +0100 From: Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com> To: Kai Lueke <kailueke@...ux.microsoft.com>, Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com> Cc: Paul Chaignon <paul@...ium.io>, Eyal Birger <eyal.birger@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Revert "xfrm: interface with if_id 0 should return error" Le 01/03/2022 à 17:44, Kai Lueke a écrit : > Hi, >> In general I agree that the userspace ABI has to be stable, but >> this never worked. We changed the behaviour from silently broken to >> notify userspace about a misconfiguration. >> >> It is the question what is more annoying for the users. A bug that >> we can never fix, or changing a broken behaviour to something that >> tells you at least why it is not working. >> >> In such a case we should gauge what's the better solution. Here >> I tend to keep it as it is. > > alternatives are: docs to ensure the API is used the right way, maybe a > dmesg log entry if wrong usage is detected, and filing bugs where the > API is used wrong. I agree with that proposal (dmesg log). Breaking an existing script, even if it made something wrong is really painful. And maybe this broken xfrm interface was unused, so everything worked well before the patch and is now broken. My two cents, Nicolas
Powered by blists - more mailing lists