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  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:   Fri, 15 May 2020 08:57:30 -0700
From:   Matthew Wilcox <>
To:     Nate Karstens <>
Cc:     Alexander Viro <>,
        Jeff Layton <>,
        "J. Bruce Fields" <>,
        Arnd Bergmann <>,
        Richard Henderson <>,
        Ivan Kokshaysky <>,
        Matt Turner <>,
        "James E.J. Bottomley" <>,
        Helge Deller <>,
        "David S. Miller" <>,
        Jakub Kicinski <>,
        Eric Dumazet <>,
        David Laight <>,,,,,,,, Changli Gao <>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Implement close-on-fork

On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 10:23:17AM -0500, Nate Karstens wrote:
> Series of 4 patches to implement close-on-fork. Tests have been
> published to
> and cover close-on-fork functionality in the following syscalls:


> This functionality was approved by the Austin Common Standards
> Revision Group for inclusion in the next revision of the POSIX
> standard (see issue 1318 in the Austin Group Defect Tracker).

NAK to this patch series, and the entire concept.

Is there a way to persuade POSIX that they made a bad decision by
standardising this mess?

Powered by blists - more mailing lists