Date: Sat, 09 Oct 1999 17:22:29 +0200 From: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@scc.nl> To: stable@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: merging current's jail functionality to stable Message-ID: <37FF5DB5.E52985A2@scc.nl> References: <19991009100231S.nectar@nectar.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Jacques Vidrine wrote: > These patches change the interface of suser(9). All uses of > suser in the source tree have been updated, but 3rd-party KLDs, > at least, would be broken by this change. > > As I see it, there are these options: > = Damn the binary compatibility. Go ahead and commit it. > Inform any known vendors about the change and encourage > them to make the trivial updates needed. This is not an option. > = Wrap these changes with ``options JAIL''. There are over > 130 files that would need ``#ifdef JAIL'' as it is. This > could be reduced, but any way you slice it, a lot of pollutant > would have to be introduced. Too much impact. Defies the meaning of -stable. > = Don't commit it, it is too much trouble. My choice. > = Use magic on the 3rd-party KLDs so that calls of suser are > folded to suser_xxx. This can't be perfect, because we'll > lose the accounting info parameter, but it might be better > than breaking the binary. Introduces non-stability. Defies the meaning of -stable. -- Marcel Moolenaar mailto:marcel@scc.nl SCC Internetworking & Databases http://www.scc.nl/ The FreeBSD project mailto:marcel@FreeBSD.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?37FF5DB5.E52985A2>