linux-kernel - Re: pidfd design

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: <20190324144404.GA32603@mail.hallyn.com>
Date:   Sun, 24 Mar 2019 09:44:04 -0500
From:   "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>
To:     Daniel Colascione <dancol@...gle.com>
Cc:     Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
        Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Sultan Alsawaf <sultan@...neltoast.com>,
        Tim Murray <timmurray@...gle.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>,
        Todd Kjos <tkjos@...roid.com>,
        Martijn Coenen <maco@...roid.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:ANDROID DRIVERS" <devel@...verdev.osuosl.org>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        kernel-team <kernel-team@...roid.com>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
        "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: pidfd design

On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 12:29:31PM -0700, Daniel Colascione wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 11:52 AM Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io> wrote:
> > I really want to see Joel's pidfd_wait() patchset and have more people
> > review the actual code.
> 
> Sure. But it's also unpleasant to have people write code and then have
> to throw it away due to guessing incorrectly about unclear
> requirements.

No, it is not.  It is not unpleasant.  And it is useful.  It is the best way to
identify and resolve those incorrect guesses and unclear requirements.