linux-kernel - Re: [GIT] writable

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:	Tue, 10 Aug 2010 18:43:01 +0200
From:	Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>
To:	Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...era.com>
CC:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT] writable_limits for 2.6.36

On 08/10/2010 06:21 PM, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> On 8/10/2010 12:01 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> 2010/8/7 Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>:
>>   
>>> please consider the following repository for 2.6.36. It introduces a new
>>> syscall for arch independent resource limits handling. It also adds a
>>> support for runtime limits changing. This feature is needed mostly by
>>> daemons servicing databases and similar service where limits are needed
>>> to be changed without services being restarted on production systems.
>>>     
>> Ok, so the code looks fine, and I don't have any real objections any
>> more. I don't know how much use this will get, but it doesn't appear
>> to be "wrong" in any way. So I was going to pull it.

Ok, thanks.

>> However, in the meantime we have commit 5360bd776f73 ("Fix up the
>> "generic" unistd.h ABI to be more useful") that clashes with it. Now,
>> the conflict is trivial to resolve, and I could do that easily - it's
>> not a technical problem. But that commit code comments say
>>
>>   + * Architectures may provide up to 16 syscalls of their own
>>   + * starting with this value.
>>   + */
>>   +#define __NR_arch_specific_syscall 244
>>
>> and the new writable rlimits syscall is obviously 244.
>>   
> 
> Jiri and I actually discussed this back on July 20th on LKML when it
> first conflicted in linux-next, and at the time he said he'd move
> prlimit64 to 261 in <asm-generic/unistd.h>.  It looks like what actually
> stuck in linux-next was different, however.  It's partly my fault for
> not following up on this.

I would do that if the tree reached linus's tree earlier, so that I
could rebase my tree on the top of that. Otherwise I couldn't do much
with that.

The resolving (merge) in -next is done by Stephen, so he probably
misunderstood us. (Oh, I could have a for-next branch where I would
merge your tree to solve the -next merging done by Stephen, but it
wouldn't solve the situation we got into now.)

thanks,
-- 
js
suse labs
--
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/