Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 13:37:21 +0200 From: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Cc: Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy@optushome.com.au>, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: HEADS-UP: starting to commit linuxolator (SoC 2006) changes... Message-ID: <20060817133721.h4cbucizcw8wc88k@netchild.homeip.net> In-Reply-To: <44E4454B.2080606@elischer.org> References: <44E1BD03.2030402@FreeBSD.org> <20060815144625.362bf376@Magellan.Leidinger.net> <44E1C3E4.7080508@FreeBSD.org> <20060815153451.604d16f1@Magellan.Leidinger.net> <44E1E85D.5070805@FreeBSD.org> <20060815180713.6a4ee2e6@Magellan.Leidinger.net> <20060815212143.G45647@fledge.watson.org> <20060816002328.365a14cd@Magellan.Leidinger.net> <20060816090653.GA820@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org> <20060816132539.owwerbnw0okwc8wo@netchild.homeip.net> <20060817080533.GA845@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org> <20060817122534.e57aqlbrwwogg8ko@netchild.homeip.net> <44E4454B.2080606@elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Quoting Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> (from Thu, 17 Aug 2006 =20 03:30:35 -0700): > Alexander Leidinger wrote: > >> Quoting Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy@optushome.com.au> (from Thu, 17 =20 >> Aug 2006 18:05:33 +1000): >> >>> On Wed, 2006-Aug-16 13:25:39 +0200, Alexander Leidinger wrote: >>>> The intend is to change the default value to 2.6.x when the code is >>>> stable enough. >>> >>> >>> What is the plan for the 2.4.x code? Will it be maintained (in which >>> case, this should be documented), left to rot or explicitly deleted? >> >> >> The 2.6 code is an extension to the 2.4 code. The 2.6 one is needed =20 >> for newer FC releases. So the current sysctl stuff is just a =20 >> disabling of some code in some syscalls. The goal is get stable 2.6 =20 >> extensions and to forget about the 2.4 downgrade (removing the =20 >> part which disables some stuff currently, the rest is needed). >> >> So no need to document the effects of some specific values for =20 >> osrelease, it's enough to say that only the default is supported, a =20 >> non default value may cause unwanted behavior and bugreports =20 >> should be submitted with default values. > > > having the ability to run older linux may be a good thing..how good is Are you willing to take care of the old linux userland infrastructure =20 in ports and to provide security support for old linux binaries? More =20 recent linux binaries (e.g. FC5) will not run with 2.4.2 (glibc checks =20 for the linux kernel version). > their backwards compatibility.. I've heard of spme people being stuck > on old > versions of linux.. maybe the sysctl could stay if there is a problem > to solve. Clarification: the sysctl will stay, the code which disables some =20 parts based upon the value of the sysctl is supposed to go away (ATM =20 it's a bad hack which checks the osrelease number *on every call* of 2 =20 functions). Anyone with interest in this is free to take care of this, as long as =20 they coordinate with the people which work on the current =20 infrastructure on emulation@ regarding the userland/security stuff and =20 the kernel. Until someone stands up and shows results/progress, this =20 is scheduled to vanish in the future. Bye, Alexander. --=20 Good night, Mrs. Calabash, wherever you are. http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net: PGP ID =3D B0063FE7 http://www.FreeBSD.org netchild @ FreeBSD.org : PGP ID =3D 72077137
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060817133721.h4cbucizcw8wc88k>