Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752169AbZKOWOg (ORCPT ); Sun, 15 Nov 2009 17:14:36 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751987AbZKOWOf (ORCPT ); Sun, 15 Nov 2009 17:14:35 -0500 Received: from mail.lang.hm ([64.81.33.126]:48438 "EHLO bifrost.lang.hm" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751959AbZKOWOe (ORCPT ); Sun, 15 Nov 2009 17:14:34 -0500 Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 14:14:34 -0800 (PST) From: david@lang.hm X-X-Sender: dlang@asgard.lang.hm To: Stephen Hemminger cc: Andi Kleen , Pekka Enberg , John Johansen , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/12] AppArmor: userspace interfaces In-Reply-To: <20091110102116.2bc5bc4f@nehalam> Message-ID: 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> <87pr7qjpn8.fsf@basil.nowhere.org> <20091110102116.2bc5bc4f@nehalam> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="680960-558440052-1258323274=:6163" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2057 Lines: 53 This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. --680960-558440052-1258323274=:6163 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT On Tue, 10 Nov 2009, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:44:27 +0100 > Andi Kleen wrote: > >> Pekka Enberg writes: >> >>> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 6:13 PM, John Johansen >>> 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. >> > > Then the distribution can maintain a patch to add the necessary translation that works for future releases, but not for past releases. David Lang > It is not the upstream kernel's job to maintain compatibility with older > out of tree code. > -- > 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/ > --680960-558440052-1258323274=:6163-- -- 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/