linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 8/6] signals: send_signal: factor out SIGNAL_GROUP

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]

Message-Id: <20080312215406.A786526F992@magilla.localdomain>
Date:	Wed, 12 Mar 2008 14:54:06 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/6] signals: send_signal: factor out SIGNAL_GROUP_EXIT checks

> Of course, since I personally don't agree, I'd like to discuss it more
> if possible.

Certainly, but let's do it under separate cover, and after some of
these cleanups settle.  (I'd rather not try to get into it this week.)

> "[PATCH 3/6] signals: use __group_complete_signal() for the specific signals too"
> adds a behaviour change too.

Your log entry was explicit about the semantics change there.  You
explained it up front and justified it.  I also happened to agree
with it, but that's a separate issue.

I am certainly not opposed to semantics changes a priori.
I happen to have reservations about this particular one.  

> Surely, I don't want to change the behaviour quietly, that is why I am
> cc'ing maintainers.

The point is that, whenever possible, a semantics change should be
isolated into a patch separate from any related cleanups.  More
important than that, no semantics change should go unmentioned so
it's only documented as a result of someone's careful review of
the change.  (Of course when a change is inadvertent, then only
review is going to notice it--that's what review is for.)

Your new pair of patches dated 2008-3-12 look like they are doing
exactly this (just the cleanup first).  After those are in, the
semantics change you want is a one-liner and easy to review and
discuss on its own.

> (note also these patches are 8/6, 9/6. Originally I was going to send
>  them in a separate series).

I had noticed that your wholes sometimes go up to 1.5; I just
figured it's because you're 50% more thorough than the rest of us.
;-)

Thanks,
Roland
--
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/