Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 15 Nov 2009 14:13:56 -0800 (PST) | From | david@lang ... | Subject | Re: [PATCH 07/12] AppArmor: userspace interfaces |
| |
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi> writes: > >> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 6:13 PM, John Johansen >> <john.johansen@canonical.com> wrote: >>> The current apparmorfs interface is compatible with previous versions >>> of AppArmor. The plans are to deprecate it (hence the config option >>> APPARMOR_COMPAT_24) and replace it with a more sysfs style single >>> entry per file interface. >> >> We don't usually merge compatibility code to handle ABIs that were >> developed out-of-tree. Why should we treat AppArmor differently? > > I would say that always depends on the deployed base of the old ABI. > If there's a lot of users who would get broken I think there's a > good case for merging compat code (I don't know if that is or > isn't the case here). > > A widely used distribution release with the old user land would > probably count.
ubuntu has shipped with AppArmor for the last few releases.
David Lang | |