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]

Message-ID: <20190121224811.gbvg22vg4kgg4kbs@brauner.io>
Date:   Mon, 21 Jan 2019 23:48:12 +0100
From:   Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>
To:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        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>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the pidfd tree with the y2038 tree

On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 03:44:17PM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 1/21/19 1:23 PM, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > 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?
> 
> I'm fine with either one, I'll have to renumber in any case. But it's 3
> new syscalls (424, 425, 426), not 4.
> 
> Arnd, what's the best way to make this switch now, in my tree? Would be

Yeah, I'd like to know that as well.

Christian

> great if I didn't have to change it again once I make the change.