linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 10/11] signal: Push pid type from signal senders down into __send

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]

Date:   Tue, 10 Jul 2018 20:11:49 -0700 (PDT)
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
cc:     Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Wen Yang <wen.yang99@....com.cn>,
        majiang <ma.jiang@....com.cn>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 10/11] signal: Push pid type from signal senders
 down into __send_signal

On Tue, 10 Jul 2018, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> Use the information we already have to document which signals are sent
> to a group of processes and which signals are sent to a single process
> or a single thread.

Ahh.

This is much nicer than what I was playing with yesterday, trying to 
separate out the "bool group" logic in the signal sending code.

I didn't even think to use the pidtype. 

In my defense, I would never have done this whole pidtype cleanup that 
preceded this patch just to fix that odd fork() thing.

As I started reading this patch series, I went from "this seems a bit 
pointless" to "Ahhh...." and as I did that I started liking the series a 
lot more.

My initial reaction was "this seems over-engineered" when I just looked at 
the subject lines in my mailbox.

But as I progressed through the series, I really appreciated it. And this 
"10/11" was when I went "ok, I don't even need to see patch 11, I know 
what he's doing.

Anyway, take that as a long-winded ack for the approach and the 
appreciation of the series.

Of course, that's just reading through the patches, no actual _testing_ of 
them. But it looks good to me.

Thanks,

                Linus