Re: RFC: KEYS: Is this too-big a behavioural change for a system call?

2014-01-30 Thread Linus Torvalds
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 9:03 AM, David Howells wrote: > > I've been asked by Kerberos developers to slightly change the behaviour of the > add_key() and request_key() system calls and a couple of the keyctl() > functions > - and I'm wondering if you'd be okay with it. So the rule about ABI chang

Re: RFC: KEYS: Is this too-big a behavioural change for a system call?

2014-01-30 Thread James Morris
On Thu, 30 Jan 2014, David Howells wrote: > (5) Don't implicitly create a new anonymous keyring and don't implicitly set > the session keyring to the user-session keyring, but rather just fall > back > to using the user-session keyring if there isn't a session keyring. > > > That sa

RFC: KEYS: Is this too-big a behavioural change for a system call?

2014-01-30 Thread David Howells
[Sent again, this time with Linus's address correct] Hi Linus, I've been asked by Kerberos developers to slightly change the behaviour of the add_key() and request_key() system calls and a couple of the keyctl() functions - and I'm wondering if you'd be okay with it. The current behaviour can b

RFC: KEYS: Is this too-big a behavioural change for a system call?

2014-01-30 Thread David Howells
Hi Linus, I've been asked by Kerberos developers to slightly change the behaviour of the add_key() and request_key() system calls and a couple of the keyctl() functions - and I'm wondering if you'd be okay with it. The current behaviour can be illustrated thusly: (*) The add_key() syscall, for