lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [May]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2] x86: Preserve iopl on fork and execve
From
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 11:40 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> - Nothing actually broke that people cared about in the last 2.5
> years, thus this might be one of the (very very rare) cases where
> preserving a breakage is the right thing to do.

Indeed. The Linux "no regressions" rule is not about some theoretical
"the ABI changed". It's about actual observed regressions.

So if we can improve the ABI without any user program or workflow
breaking, that's fine.

How was this detected? Was it just from code inspection? Because if
so, I think the "don't preserve iopl" is indeed the better ABI and we
should keep it, accidental or not, since it restricts the impact.

But if it turns out somebody was actually depending on it, it's a
regression. Of course, 2.5 years later, that is unlikely, but hey,
some usages clearly end up updating kernels much too seldom.

Linus


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-05-12 17:21    [W:1.709 / U:0.216 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site