Re: [PATCH 07/12] AppArmor: userspace interfaces

david
2009-11-15T22:14:36Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 1497 bytes --]

On Tue, 10 Nov 2009, Stephen Hemminger wrote:

> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:44:27 +0100
> Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> 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/
>