[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 13:07:53 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Containers <containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...k.frob.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
"Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/26] Fixing wait, exit, ptrace, exec, and CLONE_THREAD
On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 12:01 PM, Eric W. Biederman
<ebiederm@...ssion.com> wrote:
>
> I am posting this patches in the hope of some review of the strategy I
> am taking and to let the individual patches be reviewed.
I'm trying to look through these, and finding (as usual) that the
signal handling and exit code is extremely scary from a correctness
and security standpoint.
I really want Oleg to review/ack these. Oleg?
I also would really really want to see the stuff that actually changes
semantics split out.
For example, I feel much less nervous about things like making the
tasklist RCU-safe. So I'd like to see changes like that be separated
out from the much scarier ones. Would that be possible? Hint hint..
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists