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
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 17:40:28 -0800 From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> To: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> Cc: Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: Issues with "x86, um: switch to generic fork/vfork/clone" commit On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote: > > Anyway, that's a separate story - semctl(2) is going to be ugly, no matter > what we do, but the rest of those guys doesn't have to. How about the > following (completely untested): Hmm. Looks like the RightThing(tm) to me. The thing that stands out that I question the value of that HAVE_SYSCALL_WRAPPERS thing. Is there any reason we don't just make all architectures use it? What's the downside? I'm not sure I see the point of the non-wrapper version. Linus -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists