[OpenAFS-devel] Fully Functional Client on Linux 2.6

[Jeffrey Hutzelman]

On Friday, July 02, 2004 15:33:27 -0400 Jack Neely <jjneely@pams.ncsu.edu> 
wrote:

> Folks,
>
> I have a fully functional OpenAFS client on Linux 2.6, well, at least
> the current Fedora Core 2 kernels.  I decided to document NCSU's OpenAFS
> packages a bit.  That includes this information and is at:
>
>     http://linux.ncsu.edu/projects/openafs-rpms/
>
> You'll need to have both kernel and kernel-smp packages installed to
> build the RPM from there.
>
> The current set of patches against yesterday's CVS (pretty much 1.3.65)
> are attached.

Ew Ew Ew.
This smacks of "this is what I did to get it to compile for me, and never 
mind if it is stable, correct, or will work for anyone else."


No, it's not OK to assume any chunk of memory containing 222 kernel-text 
addresses is the system call table.  That's prone to both false positives 
(finding a chunk of memory that happens to meet that but is not the syscall 
table) and false negatives (some other module is evil like us and has 
hooked a syscall).  The technique presented by haba and jimmy at the 
workshop last week is much more palatable.


No, it's not OK to rip out configure tests because they don't do the right 
thing for you.  If your kernel has syscalls.h and you want to add a test 
for that and include it if it's there, fine.  But add a _new_ test, don't 
rip out the test for syscall.h which was put there for a reason.

And yes, sock_create having 5 arguments doesn't correlate with 
LINUX_KERNEL_IS_SELINUX.  But the solution is not to rip out the 
conditional, but to replace it with something that uses the correct test. 
Like it or not, there are a lot of FC2 users out there with kernels that 
_do_ have this "feature", and we need to support them.


IMHO none of these patches are in any condition to be incorporated into the 
openafs head without reworking to prevent breaking it in cases where it 
works correctly now.

-- Jeff