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

[david]

On Tue, 10 Nov 2009, Stephen Hemminger wrote:

> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:44:27 +0100
> Andi Kleen <andi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Pekka Enberg <penberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >
> > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 6:13 PM, John Johansen
> > > <john.johansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > The current apparmorfs interface is compatible with previous versions
> > > > of AppArmor. ÂThe 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/