To: Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi>
Cc: John Johansen <john.johansen@canonical.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/12] AppArmor: userspace interfaces
From: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
References: <1257869585-7092-1-git-send-email-john.johansen@canonical.com>
	<1257869585-7092-8-git-send-email-john.johansen@canonical.com>
	<84144f020911100829k515c7f73w84df942162a49a30@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:44:27 +0100
In-Reply-To: <84144f020911100829k515c7f73w84df942162a49a30@mail.gmail.com> (Pekka Enberg's message of "Tue, 10 Nov 2009 18:29:52 +0200")
Message-ID: <87pr7qjpn8.fsf@basil.nowhere.org>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.1008 (Gnus v5.10.8) Emacs/22.3 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1121
Lines: 28

Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi> writes:

> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 6:13 PM, John Johansen
> <john.johansen@canonical.com> wrote:
>> The current apparmorfs interface is compatible with previous versions
>> of AppArmor. ?The plans are to deprecate it (hence the config option
>> APPARMOR_COMPAT_24) and replace it with a more sysfs style single
>> entry per file interface.
>
> We don't usually merge compatibility code to handle ABIs that were
> developed out-of-tree. Why should we treat AppArmor differently?

I would say that always depends on the deployed base of the old ABI.
If there's a lot of users who would get broken I think there's a
good case for merging compat code (I don't know if that is or
isn't the case here). 

A widely used distribution release with the old user land would
probably count.

-Andi
-- 
ak@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
--
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/