linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -mm] sys_unshare: simplify the not-really-implemented CLONE

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 1 Apr 2010 01:53:53 +0200
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Badari Pulavarty <pbadari@...ibm.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Janak Desai <janak@...ibm.com>,
	Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
	Stanislaw Gruszka <sgruszka@...hat.com>,
	Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@...ibm.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm] sys_unshare: simplify the not-really-implemented
	CLONE_THREAD/SIGHAND/VM code

On 03/24, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> That said, I do not really care about this cleanup. I did it just because
> I sent another patch which touches check_unshare_flags(), and I was really
> surprised that ~70 lines in kernel/fork.c do nothing but confuse the reader.

I changed my mind. I do care ;)

Seriously, Eric, it is just stupid this code does nothing but complicates
fork.c, and unless you prove this patch is wrong you can't convince me
this patch is bad idea.

> Please nack this patch and lets forget it ;)

Yes. You have all rights to nack it and I won't insist even if I disagree.
But please do this explicitly, otherwise I'll resend it.

Oleg.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/