On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 3:20 PM, Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 22 Jun 2012 15:07:45 -0700 > Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> mode=2 to disk _should_ break, is my point. > > And my point is that we should at least tell people that we broke it. > I don't believe that returning an EINVAL from the write() is > sufficient. Because it introduces a high risk that people will run > misconfigured systems for lengthy periods and it will cause them to > have to do a *lot* of work once they discover that their system is > misbehaving. > > So if we really really must instabreak back-compatibility, we should > shout loudly into syslog about it: tell people that their system is > broken and tell them what to do about it. > > And we should explain and justify this extraordinary action in the > patch changelog. Okay, sounds good. Should mode 3 added with mode 2 removed, or just drop the dangerous behavior from mode 2? I will be loud in either situation (e.g. with mode 3, setting mode 2 shouts, or when attempt to write to disk in mode 2, shout). -Kees -- Kees Cook Chrome OS Security -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
