linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/6] autofs4: support RCU-walk

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: <20140716160005.6c43668d@notabene.brown>
Date:	Wed, 16 Jul 2014 16:00:05 +1000
From:	NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>
To:	Ian Kent <raven@...maw.net>
Cc:	autofs@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] autofs4: support RCU-walk

On Wed, 16 Jul 2014 11:24:58 +0800 Ian Kent <raven@...maw.net> wrote:

> On Thu, 2014-07-10 at 09:41 +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
> > autofs4 currently doesn't support RCU-walk - it immediately
> > aborts any attempt at RCU-walk to force REF-walk for path name
> > lookup.
> 
> As discussed I don't have time to properly test these just now but I'll
> do my best to review the patches and return to test them later.

Thanks.

> 
> My impression is that you will be submitting these patches rather than
> expecting me to pick them up and submit them. If that's not what your
> expecting please let me know.

I had assumed that you would take them as you are listed as the maintainer.
However if you would like me to send them on I can certainly do that.
You seem to send via Andrew Morton so I'll do that when they seem to be ready
if you like.

> 
> I appreciate you including me in this work, all to often things get
> merged that I'm miss and while I may not have identified any problem
> with them at the time at least I would be aware of what I might need to
> look at when problems arise.
>  

Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I have this idea that all patches *must* at
least be Cc:ed to the maintainer and if they are as intrusive as these, they
*must* be approved.  Maybe others behave different?

Thanks,
NeilBrown


Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (829 bytes)