linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] signal: move show_unhandled

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: <603f5357-3018-6c1b-2dc8-ec96aee9552c@intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 25 May 2023 11:52:58 -0700
From:   Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To:     Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>
Cc:     keescook@...omium.org, yzaikin@...gle.com, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
        arnd@...db.de, bp@...en8.de, James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com,
        deller@....de, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com,
        dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, x86@...nel.org, hpa@...or.com,
        luto@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org, brgerst@...il.com,
        christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr, kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com,
        jroedel@...e.de, j.granados@...sung.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        willy@...radead.org, linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] signal: move show_unhandled_signals sysctl to its own
 file

On 5/24/23 00:30, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
>> It doesn't actually have anything to do with moving the
>> show_unhandled_signals sysctl, right?
> Well in my case it is making sure the sysctl variable used is declared
> as well.

But what does this have to do with _this_ patch?  This:

> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/umip.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/umip.c
> @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@
>  #include <asm/insn.h>
>  #include <asm/insn-eval.h>
>  #include <linux/ratelimit.h>
> +#include <linux/signal.h>

For instance.  You don't move things to another header or make *ANY*
change to the compilation of umip.c.  So why patch it?

It looks to me like a _fundamentally_ superfluous change.  That hunk
literally *can't* be related to the rest of the patch.

>> If that's the case, it would be nice to have this in its own patch.
> If its not really fixing any build bugs or functional bugs I don't see
> the need. But if you really want it, I can do it.
> 
> Let me know!

Yes, I really want it.

Please remove all the x86 bits from _this_ patch.  If x86 has a
separate, preexisting problem, please send that patch separately with a
separate changelog and justification.

We'll take a look.