Re: thoughts on kernel security issues

[Bill Davidsen]

Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2005, Bill Davidsen wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately if A depends on B to work at all, you have to put A and B 
> > in as a package.
>
>
> No. That's totally bogus. You can put in B on its own. You do not have to 
> make A+B be one patch.

No,perhaps it isn't clear. If A changes the way a lock is used (for 
example), then all the places which were using the lock the old way have 
to use it the new way, or lockups or similar bad behaviour occur.

Did I say it more clearly? Some things, like locks, have to have all the 
players using the same rules.
> > There is no really good way (AFAIK) to submit a bunch of patches and
> > say "if any one of these is rejected the whole thing should be ignored."
>
>
> But that's done ALL THE TIME. Claiming that there is no good way is not 
> only disingenious (we call them "numbers", and they start at 1, go to 2, 
> then 3. Then there's usually a 0-patch which only contains explanations 
> of the series), but it's clearly not true, since we have patches like that 
> weekly. 

Again, I said later that it depends on the maintainer not to apply one 
part which won't work without the others. Not that it wasn't happening, 
but that there's nothing more formal than human talent. I don't regard 
that as a really good way, since it makes more work for maintainers.

I really think the original post was reasonably clear that I was 
suggesting a more formal means of designating things which should be 
accepted as a unit, not whatever you rea into it.

--
bill davidsen <davidsen@xxxxxxx>
  CTO TMR Associates, Inc
  Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/