On Friday, July 02, 2004 15:33:27 -0400 Jack Neely <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Folks,
I have a fully functional OpenAFS client on Linux 2.6, well, at least the current Fedora Core 2 kernels. I decided to document NCSU's OpenAFS packages a bit. That includes this information and is at:
http://linux.ncsu.edu/projects/openafs-rpms/
You'll need to have both kernel and kernel-smp packages installed to build the RPM from there.
The current set of patches against yesterday's CVS (pretty much 1.3.65) are attached.
Ew Ew Ew.
This smacks of "this is what I did to get it to compile for me, and never mind if it is stable, correct, or will work for anyone else."
No, it's not OK to assume any chunk of memory containing 222 kernel-text addresses is the system call table. That's prone to both false positives (finding a chunk of memory that happens to meet that but is not the syscall table) and false negatives (some other module is evil like us and has hooked a syscall). The technique presented by haba and jimmy at the workshop last week is much more palatable.
No, it's not OK to rip out configure tests because they don't do the right thing for you. If your kernel has syscalls.h and you want to add a test for that and include it if it's there, fine. But add a _new_ test, don't rip out the test for syscall.h which was put there for a reason.
And yes, sock_create having 5 arguments doesn't correlate with LINUX_KERNEL_IS_SELINUX. But the solution is not to rip out the conditional, but to replace it with something that uses the correct test. Like it or not, there are a lot of FC2 users out there with kernels that _do_ have this "feature", and we need to support them.
IMHO none of these patches are in any condition to be incorporated into the openafs head without reworking to prevent breaking it in cases where it works correctly now.
-- Jeff _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
