Willy Tarreau - 17.09.19, 10:35:16 CEST: > On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 09:33:40AM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote: > > However this again would be burdening users with an issue they > > should > > not have to care about. Unless userspace developers care enough and > > manage to take time to fix the issue before updated kernels come to > > their systems. Cause again it would be users systems that would not > > be working. Just cause kernel and userspace developers did not > > agree and chose to fight with each other instead of talking *with* > > each other. > It has nothing to do with fighting at all, it has to do with offering > what applications *need* without breaking existing assumptions that > make most applications work. And more importantly it involves not […] Well I got the impression or interpretation that it would be about fighting… if it is not, all the better! > > At least with killing gdm Systemd may restart it if configured to do > > so. But if it doesn't, the user is again stuck with a non working > > system until restarting gdm themselves. > > > > It may still make sense to make the API harder to use, > > No. What is hard to use is often misused. It must be harder to misuse > it, which means it should be easier to correctly use it. The choice of > flag names and the emission of warnings definitely helps during the > development stage. Sorry, this was a typo of mine. I actually meant harder to abuse. Anything else would not make sense in the context of what I have written. Make it easier to use properly and harder to abuse. > > but it does not > > replace talking with userspace developers and it would need some > > time to allow for adapting userspace applications and services. > > Which is how adding new flags can definitely help even if adoption > takes time. By the way in this discussion I am a userspace developer > and have been hit several times by libraries switching to getrandom() > that silently failed to respond in field. As a userspace developer, I > really want to see a solution to this problem. And I'm fine if the > kernel decides to kill haproxy for using getrandom() with the old > settings, at least users will notice, will complain to me and will > update. Good to see that you are also engaging as a userspace developer in the discussion. Thanks, -- Martin
