linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Identify which executable object the userspace address belongs to. Store thread group leader id, and use it to lookup the address in the process's map. We could have looked up the address on thread's map, but the thread might not exist by the time we are called. The process might not exist either, but if you are reading trace

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: <20081106095547.GK4890@elte.hu>
Date:	Thu, 6 Nov 2008 10:55:47 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
	T?r?k Edwin <edwintorok@...il.com>, srostedt@...hat.com,
	a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, sandmann@...mi.au.dk,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Identify which executable object the userspace address
	belongs to. Store thread group leader id, and use it to lookup the
	address in the process's map. We could have looked up the address
	on thread's map, but the thread might not exist by the time we are
	called. The process might not exist either, but if you are reading
	trace_pipe, that is unlikely.

* Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 03, 2008 at 08:32:57AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > could you please help out with such a helper? This is really about 
> > visualization, not to rely on it.
> 
> Is this kindergarten? [...]

No, this is lkml where, if you decide to stand in the way of a patch, 
you are supposed to back up your NAK's with a path out of that NAK. 
Instead of forcing people into multiple email ping-pongs trying to 
figure out what exactly the objections mean.

Look at the time flow of the mails:

 |  Nov  2   22:18:21 2008        # submission
 |  Nov  2   22:25:16 2008        # +7 minutes, NAK with no comment 
 |
 |  [ ~5 unnecessary mails ]
 |
 |  Nov  4   20:09:13 20008       # +2 days, ACK

What was done was inefficent and unnecessary, it caused a hickup and 
delay of 2 days in the workflow - at the point of the NAK it was 
already known what the right solution is, it just was obscured behind 
a moody reply. Such obstruction adds up and it simply does not scale 
as a form of communication.

Nobody learned anything new compared to the case had the +7 minutes 
reply included this information already.

	Ingo
--
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/