[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170405160845.GA14536@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 18:08:45 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Aleksa Sarai <asarai@...e.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Attila Fazekas <afazekas@...hat.com>,
Jann Horn <jann@...jh.net>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Ulrich Obergfell <uobergfe@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: scope of cred_guard_mutex.
On 04/03, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> You have asked why I have problems with your patch and so I am going to
> try to explain. Partly I want to see a clean set of patches that we
> can merge into Linus's tree before we make any compromises. Because the
> work preparing a clean patchset may inform us of something better. Plus
> we need to make something clean and long term maintainable in any event.
>
> Partly I object because your understanding and my understanding of
> cred_guard_mutex are very different.
And I think there is another problem, your understanding and my understanding
of "clean" differ too much and it seems that we can not convince each other ;)
The last series looks buggy (I'll send more emails later today), but the
main problem is that - in my opinion! - your approach is "obviously wrong
and much less clean". But yes, yes, I understand that this is my opinion,
and I can be wrong.
Eric, I think we need more CC's. Linus, probably security list, the more
the better.
I am going to resend my series with more CC's, then you can nack it and
explain what you think we should do. Perhaps someone else will suggest
a better solution, or at least review the patches. OK?
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists