linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 0/2] proc: Ensure we see the exit of each process tid exactly

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:   Tue, 28 Apr 2020 12:55:07 -0500
From:   ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux FS Devel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
        Alexey Gladkov <legion@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Alexey Gladkov <gladkov.alexey@...il.com>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/2] proc: Ensure we see the exit of each process tid exactly

Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> writes:

> On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 5:20 AM Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com> wrote:
>>
>> In short I don't think this change will introduce any regressions.
>
> I think the series looks fine, but I also think the long explanation
> (that I snipped in this reply) in the cover letter should be there in
> the kernel tree.

When I have been adding patchsets like this to my tree I have been doing
merge --no-ff so I can create a place for explanations like this, and I
will do the same with this.

I already have Alexey Gladkov's proc changes, and my next_tgid cleanup
on a branch of proc changes in my tree already.

> So if you send me this as a single pull request, with that explanation
> (either in the email or in the signed tag - although you don't seem to
> use tags normally - so that we have that extra commentary for
> posterity, that sounds good.

I hope you don't mind if I combind this with some other proc changes.
If you do mind I will put this on a separate topic branch.

Right now it just seems easier for me to keep track of if I keep my
number of topics limited.

> That said, this fix seems to not matter for normal operation, so
> unless it's holding up something important, maybe it's 5.8 material?

Yes, this is 5.8 material.

I am just aiming to get review before I put in linux-next, and later
send it to your for merging.  I should have mentioned that in the cover
letter.

I am noticing that removing technical debt without adding more technical
debt is quite a challenge.

Eric