linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/41] signal: Use set_current

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20110818183659.GA10353@redhat.com>
Date:	Thu, 18 Aug 2011 20:36:59 +0200
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Matt Fleming <matt@...sole-pimps.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/41] signal: Use set_current_blocked()

On 08/18, Matt Fleming wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2011-08-17 at 23:17 +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
> >
> > This does look like a decent clean up, especially because so many
> > architectures got this sequence wrong in the past. But yeah, it will
> > require me to rewrite half my series ;-)
> >
> > Is it worth rewriting the series? Dunno. I'm not convinced that the
> > wrapper buys us enough for that,

Oh, I am not sure too. I almost regret I mentioned this cleanup. Just
I was a bit suprised by how many arches do this wrong. See also below.

> plus it'd increase the number of
> patches.

By 1. A single patch can convert the code to use set_current_blocked()
and block_sigmask().

And probably the patch which adds block_sigmask() should change arch/x86
as well, this makes its purpose immediately clear. IOW, I'd prefer the
patch I sent (with rename). But once again, I won't persist.

> > Maybe it'd be better to do it as a separate set of patches?

I don't think so... this means another series touching arch/* to
make the very minor cleanup.

> OK so, I went ahead and rewrote the series using your clean up. It's in
> the 'oleg/set-current-blocked-v2' branch at,
>
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mfleming/linux-2.6.git
>
> Would you mind taking a quick look and see which series you prefer?

No, no, no. Matt, please choose the series which _you_ prefer. You
are the author. I am fine either way.

> I resend any patches.

Yes. I think you should resend the whole series in any case. Because
I think our discussion could confuse the maintainers.

Can I ask you to CC them all in 00/XX ? In this case I can reply
to 00 saying that I am going to take the whole series, unless the
maintainer want to do this. Otherwise I should reply per-arch, this
will certainly cause the confusion.

And, Matt, if I take the patch and then we have any sort of conflict,
you will have to help me with the git problems ;) My understanding
of git magic is quite limited.

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/