linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/7] signal: retarget_shared_pending: consider shared/unblocked signals only

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: <20110426194536.GA7590@redhat.com>
Date:	Tue, 26 Apr 2011 21:45:36 +0200
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Nikita V. Youshchenko" <nyoushchenko@...sta.com>,
	Matt Fleming <matt@...sole-pimps.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/7] signal: retarget_shared_pending: consider
	shared/unblocked signals only

Hi,

On 04/25, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hey,
>
> On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 7:02 PM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
> > I did these changes against the Linus's tree to simplify the review, and
> > because there are completely orthogonal to ptrace changes. Also, I like
> > very much the fact -mm has users/testers.
> >
> > In fact, there are trivial conflicts with the ptrace branch. I think
> > ptrace should be flushed first, so I'll rebase this "sigprocmask" branch
> > when I address all comments.
> >
> > Or do you think I should merge these changes into ptrace branch? I'd like
> > to keep them separate, but I am not sure if I should...
>
> I don't know.  Signal/ptrace is closely coupled and you would be
> reviewing/acking anyway, and linux-next has some test coverage (I
> don't know how much but...), so I think it would be least painful to
> route these together.  You can create separate topic branches for
> signal and ptrace but I don't think that's required.  Anyways, yeah,
> if there's no objection, I think it would be best to route these
> together with the ptrace changes.  The conflicts wouldn't be trivial
> and for a reason.

OK. I tried to update my branch to address the comments from you and
Matt, but I got lost inside the git-learning-curve. Will do tomorrow.

Until then, could you review the updated version of the new changes
we discussed yesterday? (will send in a minute).

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/