On 12-03-23 08:35 AM, Richard Purdie wrote:
On Thu, 2012-03-22 at 11:44 -0400, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
On 12-03-22 11:12 AM, Koen Kooi wrote:
Op 22 mrt. 2012, om 15:49 heeft Richard Purdie het volgende geschreven:
On Thu, 2012-03-22 at 13:22 +0100, Koen Kooi wrote:
In my never ending quest to get consolekit/polkit/etc working properly
I've found that CONFIG_AUDITSYSCALL is really usefull (it's usefull in
other contexts as well, but that's outside the oe-core set of
recipes). It has the following problem:
config AUDITSYSCALL
bool "Enable system-call auditing support"
depends on AUDIT&& (X86 || PPC || S390 || IA64 || UML ||
SPARC64 || SUPERH)
No MIPS or ARM support. There recently was a pull request from Al Viro
to get at least ARM support into mainline, but I'm not sure what
happened to that. Anyway, I backported the ARM patch to 3.0 and 3.2,
but to make it usefull I'd need to patch linux-libc-headers and bump
PR on virtual/libc.
What's the OE-core position on backporting syscalls to
linux-libc-headers?
Why can't we just increase the linux-libc-headers version?
Sorry for the slow reply, I missed the original and was wrapped
up in some debugging.
In this case that would be perfectly fine. And bump PR in virtual/libc of
course :)
I was just about to do this. Just a day or so ago, I noticed that
the version had lagged (again) and needed to be bumped. I'm all
for this as well, as long as there's a graceful fallback of ENOSYS
there's no real harm to older kernels.
Richard: an to you on this one .. is it too late to do this for
the various stabilization points ?
I'm a bit jittery on this. If I have the patch today and it doesn't
break anything it might make it in...
ok. patch pending now. I'm doing extra builds here.
Presumably
someone running a kernel without the patches won't see any issue, the
syscall just won't be present and software will fall back?
Exactly
+1 (I read this after typing my response).
I think the big concern would be deviating from mainline as its not so
much a backport as a divergence at this point (and this is why we can't
just upgrade)?
Speaking of divergence, what is the point of having
linux-libc-headers-yocto_git.bb ?
Very little. It was originally used to export exactly the headers
as were present in the yocto kernel tree, but Richard and I since
agreed that tgz based libc-headers where faster and good enough.
We can move it to the yocto layers for use by anyone that really needs
this 1:1 mapping of kernel tree to headers in the system.
And a second: .. is it too late to do this for stabilization points ?
No, I'll take that one since its a removal on something that is unused.
ok. I'll get this one fired out as well.
Bruce
Cheers,
Richard
x
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
