linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 0/1] waitid: process group enhancement

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: <20190814155822.GI9017@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
Date:   Wed, 14 Aug 2019 11:58:22 -0400
From:   Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
To:     Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, libc-alpha@...rceware.org,
        oleg@...hat.com, alistair23@...il.com, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
        arnd@...db.de, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
        adhemerval.zanella@...aro.org, fweimer@...hat.com,
        palmer@...ive.com, macro@....com, zongbox@...il.com,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, hpa@...or.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/1] waitid: process group enhancement

On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 05:43:59PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> Hey everyone,
> 
> This patch adds support for waiting on the current process group by
> specifying waitid(P_PGID, 0, ...) as discussed in [1]. The details why
> we need to do this are in the commit message of [PATCH 1/1] so I won't
> repeat them here.
> 
> I've picked this up since the thread has gone stale and parts of
> userspace are actually blocked by this.
> 
> Note that the patch has been changed to be more closely aligned with the
> P_PIDFD changes to waitid() I have sitting in my for-next branch (cf. [2]).
> This makes the merge conflict a little simpler and picks up on the
> coding style discussions that guided the P_PIDFD patchset.
> 
> There was some desire to get this feature in with 5.3 (cf. [3]).
> But given that this is a new feature for waitid() and for the sake of
> avoiding any merge conflicts I would prefer to land this in the 5.4
> merge window together with the P_PIDFD changes.

That makes 5.4 (or later, depending on other stuff) the hard minimum
for RV32 ABI. Is that acceptable? I was under the impression (perhaps
mistaken) that 5.3 was going to be next LTS series which is why I'd
like to have the necessary syscalls for a complete working RV32
userspace in it. If I'm wrong about that please ignore me. :-)

Rich