Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751007AbWCRVHt (ORCPT ); Sat, 18 Mar 2006 16:07:49 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751009AbWCRVHt (ORCPT ); Sat, 18 Mar 2006 16:07:49 -0500 Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:59808 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751002AbWCRVHs (ORCPT ); Sat, 18 Mar 2006 16:07:48 -0500 Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2006 13:04:46 -0800 From: Andrew Morton To: tglx@linutronix.de Cc: jesper.juhl@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@elte.hu, trini@kernel.crashing.org Subject: Re: [patch 1/2] Validate itimer timeval from userspace Message-Id: <20060318130446.18f4ae40.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <1142713820.17279.140.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <20060318142827.419018000@localhost.localdomain> <20060318142830.607556000@localhost.localdomain> <20060318120728.63cbad54.akpm@osdl.org> <9a8748490603181223i32391d96nf794e93aa734f785@mail.gmail.com> <1142713820.17279.140.camel@localhost.localdomain> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 1.0.4 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1461 Lines: 33 Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > On Sat, 2006-03-18 at 21:23 +0100, Jesper Juhl wrote: > > > Wouldn't this only break existing applications that do incorrect > > things (passing invalid values) ? > > If that's the case I'd say breaking them is OK and we should change to > > follow the spec. > > > > I don't like potential userspace breakage any more than the next guy, > > but if the breakage only affects buggy applications then I think it's > > more acceptable. > > Yes, it only breaks buggy applications. But we live in the real world. There could be four-year-old applications which passed all their Linux QA and which work perfectly well. Then the kernel guys make some correctness change and that application totally fails on new kernels. Your choice is a) don't use new kernels or b) hold off the new kernel until your provider (if the company or internal group still exists) has put out a new version of the application and then you wear the (considerable) cost of upgrading what was a perfectly-running application. And whose fault was it? Ours. Because older kernels had the wrong checking (thus causing that app's QA to pass) and because later kernels changed the rules. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/