On 01/16/2017 07:04 PM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote: > [CC += linux-api + Dave Chinner] > Summary of the above list: there's a nontrivial risk that something in > userspace got broken. (And just because we didn't hear about it yet > doesn't mean it didn't happen; sometimes these reports only arrive > many months or even years later.) > > So, (1) I'm struggling to see the rationale for this change (I don't > think "consistency" is enough) and (2) if "consistency" is the > argument then (because the set of system calls in [1] are more > frequently used than those in [2]), there's a reasonable argument that > the change should have gone the other way: changing all IS_IMMUTABLE > cases to fail with EACCES. > > Summary: I think there's an argument for reverting the kernel patch. Completely agree. Even if you go ahead with these changes, they really should go through some kind of distro verification [1]. If I even contemplated such a change in glibc I'd run it through 4-6 months of Fedora Rawhide builds just to see what breaks before putting it out in a real release (and we do this frequently for thread-related changes). -- Cheers, Carlos. [1] "Usage of Fedora Rawhide" https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Glibc -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
