> Then there's an unanswered question: is this patch acceptable given > that it's an ABI break? Security fixes are sometimes an exception to > the "no ABI breaks" rule, but it's by no means an automatic exception. > > --Andy
It seems this could be worked around in general. Processes can have a bit tracking whether this is enabled, and CRIU can save/restore it. It would just leave it off for resuming old saved processes. Should CRIU really be covered by the kernel's ABI guarantee though? It seems like this was meant to be extensible, so it's adding an extra ABI guarantee that wasn't there before. It makes sense to freeze this ABI for CRIU, but a version field should be added first in one final ABI break if it's not too late.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
