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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2018 08:47:27 +0200 From: Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz> To: Dmitry Safonov <dima@...sta.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Cc: Daniel Axtens <dja@...ens.net>, Dmitry Safonov <0x7f454c46@...il.com>, Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>, Tan Xiaojun <tanxiaojun@...wei.com>, Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>, Pasi Kärkkäinen <pasik@....fi>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Michael Neuling <mikey@...ling.org>, Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>, stable@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] tty: Drop tty->count on tty_reopen() failure On 08/29/2018, 06:13 PM, Dmitry Safonov wrote: >> I would just do: >> if (!retval) >> tty->count++; >> here. Nobody from ldiscs should rely on tty->count. > > I thought about that and probably should have described in commit > message why I haven't done that: I prefer to keep it as was as I did Cc > stable tree - to keep the chance of regression to minimum. > > I agree that your way is cleaner, but probably it may be done as > cleanup on top for linux-next.. Agreed, so care to cook it up as 5/4 in this series :)? thanks, -- js suse labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists