docs: improve "Kernel Support" table #211
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
We probably should've always done this, but openat2(2) was originally
put first since it's probably the most important feature and was the
first thing I added.
But to users I suspect that ordering by minimum kernel version is far
easier to follow and provides more useful information ("given a kernel
version, above this line is supported, below this line is not").
Signed-off-by: Aleksa Sarai <[email protected]>
open_tree(2) was added before fsopen(2), and so really we need two rows to better describe the behaviour. Also it seems germane to actually explain what kinds of threats there are with overmounts with each type ProcfsHandle, for those that care. Signed-off-by: Aleksa Sarai <[email protected]>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
open_tree(2) was added before fsopen(2), and so really we need two rows
to better describe the behaviour. Also it seems germane to actually
explain what kinds of threats there are with overmounts with each type
ProcfsHandle, for those that care.
To users I also suspect that ordering by minimum kernel version is far
easier to follow and provides more useful information ("given a kernel
version, above this line is supported, below this line is not").
Signed-off-by: Aleksa Sarai [email protected]