| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20090504193016.GA17076@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 21:30:16 +0200 From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> To: Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Jeff Dike <jdike@...toit.com>, utrace-devel@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC, PATCH 0/2] utrace/ptrace: simplify/cleanup ptrace attach On 05/04, Roland McGrath wrote: > > I guess I'm slightly confused. Me too ;) > We want to merge all of the "pure" ptrace > cleanup patches before any utrace patch. Yes, exactly! The second patch "ptrace: do not use task_lock() for attach" has nothing to do with utrace, and it is really pure ptrace cleanup. But it can't be applied to -mm tree, because it (textually) conficts with utrace changes in ptrace_attach(). > When those are on their way, > we'll update the utrace patches not to conflict. I don't think it makes > sense to include utrace.patch's little ptrace.c change in the baseline tree > for your ptrace cleanup patches. Yes, but in this case, how can we push it before utrace-core.patch ? The first patch is only for -mm, to avoid the painful dependencies. Since you seem to mostly agree with the second patch, what should I do? 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists