netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/2] Revert "xfrm: interface with if

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, 2 Mar 2022 08:04:39 -0800
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
Cc:     Kai Lüke <kailueke@...ux.microsoft.com>,
        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"

On Tue, 1 Mar 2022 17:10:01 +0100 Steffen Klassert wrote:
> > I see this as a very generic question of changing userspace behavior or
> > not, regardless if we know how many users are affected, and from what I
> > know there are similar cases in the kernel where the response was that
> > breaking userspace is a no go - even if the intention was to be helpful
> > by having early errors.  
> 
> 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.

Agreed. FWIW would be great if patch #2 started flowing towards Linus'es
tree separately if the discussion on #1 is taking longer.