On Sun, Dec 23, 2018 at 12:02 AM Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 22, 2018 at 2:49 PM Christian Brauner > <christian.brau...@canonical.com> wrote: > > > > To be fair, no one apart from me was pointing out that it actually > > breaks people including systemd folks > > even though I was bringing it up with them. I even tried to fix all of > > userspace after this got NACKED > > Seriously, the "we don't break user space" is the #1 rule in the > kernel, and people should _know_ it's the #1 rule. > > If somebody ignores that rule, it needs to be escalated to me. > Immediately. Because I need to know.
Fair enough. I usually try to be very conservative when sending patches directly your way and Eric is otherwise very much on top of not regressing userspace and I trust him. However, for this case should I resend the revert? Christian > > I need to know so that I can override the bogus NAK, and so that we > can fix the breakage ASAP. The absolute last thing we need is some > other user space then starting to rely on the new behavior, which just > compounds the problem and makes it a *much* bigger problem. > > But I also need to know so that I can then make sure I know not to > trust the person who broke rule #1. > > This is not some odd corner case for the kernel. This is literally the > rule we have lived with for *decades*. > > So please escalate to me whenever you feel a kernel developer doesn't > follow the first rule. Because the code that broke things *will* be > reverted (*). > > Linus > > (*) Yes, there are exceptions. We have had situations where some > interface was simply just a huge security issue or had some other > fundamental issue. And we've had cases where the breakage was just so > old that it was no longer fixable. So even rule #1 can sometimes have > things that hold it back. But it is *very* rare. Certainly nothing > like this.
