[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160506193547.GA30024@kroah.com>
Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 15:35:47 -0400
From: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>, security@...ian.org,
"security@...nel.org" <security@...nel.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
"security@...ntu.com >> security" <security@...ntu.com>,
Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>,
Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@...ntu.com>,
Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>,
Aurelien Jarno <aurelien@...el32.net>,
One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Jann Horn <jann@...jh.net>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.com>,
Florian Weimer <fw@...eb.enyo.de>,
Konstantin Khlebnikov <koct9i@...il.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/1] devpts: Removing the need for pt_chown
On Fri, May 06, 2016 at 02:04:12PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> Greg,
>
> Could you please apply the following patch to tty-next so it can be
> merged into 4.7-rc1.
>
> We have had a long series of discussions and in the last iteration we
> finally converged on a set of semantics that does not break userspace
> and also makes the code simpler.
Did everyone agree? I didn't think so, but the thread got long and
messy. And then Linus did some work on this as well.
How does this play with what Linus proposed? I think only portions of
his original changes are merged, and there are still outstanding parts,
right?
totally confused,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists