linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] Please pull proc and exec work for 5.7-rc1

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:   Fri, 3 Apr 2020 13:59:08 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Cc:     "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Bernd Edlinger <bernd.edlinger@...mail.de>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Alexey Gladkov <gladkov.alexey@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Please pull proc and exec work for 5.7-rc1

On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 1:41 PM Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> Another alternative is to add new functions like down_read_unfair() that
> perform unfair read locking for its callers. That will require less code
> change, but the calling functions have to make the right choice.

I'd prefer the static choice model - and I'd hide this in some
"task_cred_read_lock()" function anyway rather than have the users do
"mutex_lock_killable(&task->signal->cred_guard_mutex)" like they do
now.

How nasty would it be to add the "upgrade" op? I took a quick look,
but that just made me go "Waiman would know" ;)

             Linus