linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2] poweroff: fix bug in orderly

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: <20120921153033.GB13764@sergelap>
Date:	Fri, 21 Sep 2012 10:30:33 -0500
From:	Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@...onical.com>
To:	Feng Hong <hongfeng@...vell.com>
Cc:	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
	"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"gorcunov@...nvz.org" <gorcunov@...nvz.org>,
	"keescook@...omium.org" <keescook@...omium.org>,
	"ebiederm@...ssion.com" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] poweroff: fix bug in orderly_poweroff

Quoting Feng Hong (hongfeng@...vell.com):
> Hi, Serge,
> 
> I am just a graduate and it's my first time to send a patch to opensource, so thank you very much for reminding me the "changelog affairs", it seems this patch has been added to -mm tree as attached mail, and I have no chance to change the comments, right ? Then I must remember this and be careful next time. Thanks again for reminding me !

Sorry, your description was fine, what i meant was something below your
patch description that looks like

Change since v1:
	[date] Per Eric's sugestion, switch from UMH_WAIT_PROC to UMH_WAIT_EXEC.

> >Is this actually sufficient for you?  The exec will have started, but may for whatever (very unlikely) reason fail.  If you're happy with it,
> I think UMH_WAIT_EXEC is sufficient for me, as in our system there is no "/sbin/poweroff" existed. On the other hand, UMH_WAIT_PROC is not suitable here as Eric analysis; if using UMH_WAIT_EXEC, and the user application fail, I'd prefer to complain bad application. So using UMH_WAIT_EXEC and UMH_WAIT_PROC has a tradeoff here, what do you think so ?

Yup, that sounds fine to me, I just wanted to make sure you were ok with the
fact that application failure (after successful exec) will be ignored.

thanks,
-serge
--
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/