linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the pidfd tree with the y2038 tree

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:   Mon, 21 Jan 2019 21:15:27 +0100
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:     Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>
Cc:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the pidfd tree with the y2038 tree

On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 8:13 PM Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 06:16:22PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 4:40 AM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> I plan on sending the pidfd branch with the new pidfd_send_signal()
> syscall for the 5.1 window. Should we somehow coordinate so that our
> branches don't conflict? Any suggestions?

A conflict can't be avoided, but if you pick system call number 427
for pidfd_send_signal, and Jens picks numbers 424 through 426 for
io_uring on all architectures, we can hopefully avoid the renumbering.
Of course, if one or more of the patch series don't make it in or
see a rework that changes the number of new syscalls, then we may
have to change the numbers after all, but we can always hope ;-)

      Arnd