linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: use only pidfd for process

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: <20200518160656.b9651ef7393db8e0614a1175@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Mon, 18 May 2020 16:06:56 -0700
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
Cc:     Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
        Oleksandr Natalenko <oleksandr@...hat.com>,
        Tim Murray <timmurray@...gle.com>,
        Daniel Colascione <dancol@...gle.com>,
        Sandeep Patil <sspatil@...gle.com>,
        Sonny Rao <sonnyrao@...gle.com>,
        Brian Geffon <bgeffon@...gle.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
        John Dias <joaodias@...gle.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
        alexander.h.duyck@...ux.intel.com,
        SeongJae Park <sjpark@...zon.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Arjun Roy <arjunroy@...gle.com>,
        Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: use only pidfd for process_madvise syscall

On Mon, 18 May 2020 14:13:50 -0700 Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org> wrote:

> Andrew, I sent this patch without folding into previous syscall introducing
> patches because it could be arguable. If you want to fold it into each
> patchset(i.e., introdcuing process_madvise syscall and introducing
> compat_syscall), let me know it. I will send partial diff to each
> patchset.

It doesn't seem necessary - I believe we'll get a clean result if I
squish all of these:

mm-support-vector-address-ranges-for-process_madvise-fix.patch
mm-support-vector-address-ranges-for-process_madvise-fix-fix.patch
mm-support-vector-address-ranges-for-process_madvise-fix-fix-fix.patch
mm-support-vector-address-ranges-for-process_madvise-fix-fix-fix-fix.patch
mm-support-vector-address-ranges-for-process_madvise-fix-fix-fix-fix-fix.patch
mm-use-only-pidfd-for-process_madvise-syscall.patch

into mm-support-vector-address-ranges-for-process_madvise.patch and
make the appropriate changelog adjustments?