On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 8:37 AM, Greg KH <greg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 08:25:53AM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote: >> On 4/19/2017 8:01 AM, Kees Cook wrote: >> >> > > > >> > > > Arjan said it would break powertop, IIRC. >> > > >> > > So we broke it in 4.11? That doesn't seem to sound reasonable, how are >> > > you getting away with that? :) >> > >> > tglx seemed to think that the same information was available elsewhere? >> >> tglx was working on patches to make the same information available elsewhere *in the future*. >> >> unless you also backport that work (and wait for powertop to release/etc)... >> just backporting the interface break without backporting the new interface... leaves things stuck. > > So, when 4.11 is released, things are then "stuck"? How is taking > something that shows up in 4.11 and adding it to 4.10 going to break > anything "worse"? > > I think this probably needs to be removed from 4.11 (i.e. added back), > right? I have no preference about this. tglx specifically asked for it to be removed (rather than the pid-censoring I was suggesting). -Kees -- Kees Cook Pixel Security