linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] kthreads: allow_signal: don't play with ->blocked

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: <1313531422.3436.218.camel@mfleming-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com>
Date:	Tue, 16 Aug 2011 22:50:22 +0100
From:	Matt Fleming <matt@...sole-pimps.org>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] kthreads: allow_signal: don't play with ->blocked

On Tue, 2011-08-16 at 21:51 +0200, Tejun Heo wrote:
> 
> I agree with the patchset but given that daemonize() isn't all that
> popular and you already posted most (or was it all?) conversions,
> wouldn't it be better to do this in a single patchset?  ie. Convert
> all daemonize() users, kill daemonize(), and drop the hack from
> allow_signal().

But because daemonize() is exported by the kernel should it go through
the Documentation/feature-removal-schedule.txt procedure? And if so, can
the allow_signal() patch still go in before daemonize() is removed?

-- 
Matt Fleming, Intel Open Source Technology Center

--
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/