On Wed, 2014-04-16 at 07:37 -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 5:57 AM, David Miller <da...@davemloft.net> wrote: > > > > Please, just stop. > > No. > > This thread is proposing an ABI. This means that, if the ABI ends up > in Linus's kernel, then it has to be supported forever. Now is the > time to find and fix any issues with it before they become much harder > to fix.
Ok, but so far I haven't seen a single objection from you that has solid grounds. The only one that *may* be reasonable is the "secret" cgroup name one, however nobody seem to come up with a reason why it is legitimate to allow to keep cgroup names secret. And if you can come up with such a good reason the SO_NOPASSCGROUP option seem the right solution. > This ABI is especially tricky because programs will use it even if > they don't explicitly try to. So just adding the ABI may break > existing assumptions that are relevant to security or correctness. It's not clear to me what you mean by this, either you explicitly use SO_PASSCGROUP or not, it's not like you can involuntarily add a flag ... Simo. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
