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 21:23:29 +0100
From:   Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
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 09:15:27PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> 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

That sounds good to me. Since it's only one syscall for the pidfd branch
is there anything that speaks against me using 424? Given that the other
patchset has 4 new syscalls. :)
Jens, any objections?

Christian