linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] init: use KERNEL_DS when trying to start init process

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]

Date:	Thu, 9 Jun 2011 10:03:06 -0700
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Mathias Krause <minipli@...glemail.com>
Cc:	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...era.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Chris Zankel <chris@...kel.net>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...nel.org,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] init: use KERNEL_DS when trying to start init process

On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 9:40 AM, Mathias Krause <minipli@...glemail.com> wrote:
>
> So the only question left: Should it be one patch moving the set_fs() call to
> flush_old_exec() and also removing the redundant calls in flush_thread() and
> start_thread() or should that be split into one for the set_fs() move and
> multiple ones for the arch specific set_fs() remove?

I'd suggest one patch that moves the set_fs(), and then possibly
removes the ones from architectures that who-ever wrote the patch can
actively test.

Doing random other architectures is not worth the effort or confusion, imho.

                            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/