On 26.09.2019 15:06, Mouse wrote:
>> [...] compat_linux and compat_linux32 [...]
> 
>> Keeping them enabled for the <1% users interested means keeping
>> vulnerabilities for the >99% who don't use these features.
> 
> Are the usage numbers really that extreme?  Where'd you get them?  I
> didn't think there were any mechanisms in place that would allow
> tracking compat usage.
> 

I depend on compat_linux/compat_linux32 in at least 4 applications. I
don't use them daily, but frequently.

There are use-cases where linux_compat* is to be or not to be for NetBSD
as host. (At least one commercial user of NetBSD depends on it as well.)

In general it is fine to disable linux_compat* unless we can ensure its
correctness with regression tests and continuous fuzzing. As I discussed
with one developer, we could test linux_compat with faked/light linux
libc, unfortunately it still did not realize.

Also linux_compat is getting more and more irrelevant as time pass due
to shortage in our futex code (lack of robust futexes).

> /~\ The ASCII                           Mouse
> \ / Ribbon Campaign
>  X  Against HTML              mo...@rodents-montreal.org
> / \ Email!         7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
> 


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply via email to