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, 30 Mar 2022 13:37:58 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <>
To:     Mathieu Desnoyers <>
Cc:     linux-kernel <>,
        Beau Belgrave <>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <>,
        linux-trace-devel <>,
        bpf <>, netdev <>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <>,
        Linus Torvalds <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tracing: Set user_events to BROKEN

On Wed, 30 Mar 2022 12:54:13 -0400 (EDT)
Mathieu Desnoyers <> wrote:

> ----- On Mar 29, 2022, at 10:25 PM, rostedt wrote:
> > From: "Steven Rostedt (Google)" <>
> > 
> > After being merged, user_events become more visible to a wider audience
> > that have concerns with the current API. It is too late to fix this for
> > this release, but instead of a full revert, just mark it as BROKEN (which
> > prevents it from being selected in make config). Then we can work finding
> > a better API. If that fails, then it will need to be completely reverted.  
> Hi Steven,
> What are the constraints for changing a uapi header after it has been present
> in a kernel release ?
> If we are not ready to commit to an ABI, perhaps it would be safer to ensure
> that include/uapi/linux/user_events.h is not installed with the uapi headers
> until it's ready.

Linus may say otherwise, but from what I understand is that we can not
break a user space application from one release to the next. That means, the
only way to break something is if it is actually using something in binary

I can not think of a situation where a header file is useful if the API
it's used for is not available. Thus do we really need to hide it? What
applications will use a header file that has no interface for it?

I do not see the need to remove the uapi if the API for that structure is
not available yet.

-- Steve

Powered by blists - more mailing lists