linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next v6 1/3] scm: add SO_PASSPIDFD and SCM

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: <CAEivzxcTEghPqk=9hQMReSGzE=ruWnJyiuPhW5rGd7eUOEg12A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 24 May 2023 17:45:25 +0200
From:   Aleksandr Mikhalitsyn <aleksandr.mikhalitsyn@...onical.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     Luca Boccassi <bluca@...ian.org>,
        Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, davem@...emloft.net,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>,
        David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...zon.com>,
        Lennart Poettering <mzxreary@...inter.de>,
        linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v6 1/3] scm: add SO_PASSPIDFD and SCM_PIDFD

On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 5:19 PM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 24 May 2023 11:47:50 +0100 Luca Boccassi wrote:
> > > I will send SO_PEERPIDFD as an independent patch too, because it
> > > doesn't require this change with CONFIG_UNIX
> > > and we can avoid waiting until CONFIG_UNIX change will be merged.
> > > I've a feeling that the discussion around making CONFIG_UNIX  to be a
> > > boolean won't be easy and fast ;-)
> >
> > Thank you, that sounds great to me, I can start using SO_PEERPIDFD
> > independently of SCM_PIDFD, there's no hard dependency between the
> > two.
>
> How about you put the UNIX -> bool patch at the end of the series,
> (making it a 4 patch series) and if there's a discussion about it
> I'll just skip it and apply the first 3 patches?

Sure, I will do that!

>
> In the (IMHO more likely) case that there isn't a discussion it saves
> me from remembering to chase you to send that patch ;)

Thanks a lot, Jakub!

Kind regards,
Alex