[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <F4707F74-22D4-402B-8FC6-992AEADDFD33@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2022 22:10:44 -0700
From: Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>
To: Andrei Vagin <avagin@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
CC: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Peter Oskolkov <posk@...gle.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ho.pizza>,
Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] seccomp: don't use semaphore and wait_queue together
On October 19, 2022 6:10:44 PM PDT, Andrei Vagin <avagin@...il.com> wrote:
>Here is no reason to use two different primitives that do similar things.
>
>Signed-off-by: Andrei Vagin <avagin@...il.com>
>---
> kernel/seccomp.c | 41 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> 1 file changed, 36 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
The commit log does not justify adding 29 lines to "do similar things". :) Can you describe the rationale and benefits here a bit more? I assume this to use the the future new wake_up helper?
--
Kees Cook
Powered by blists - more mailing lists