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 >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
