netdev - Re: linux-next: umh: fix processed error when UMH_WAIT_PROC is used seems to break linux bridge on s390x (bisected)

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20200703132850.GW4332@42.do-not-panic.com>
Date:   Fri, 3 Jul 2020 13:28:50 +0000
From:   Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>
To:     Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>
Cc:     David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>, ast@...nel.org,
        axboe@...nel.dk, bfields@...ldses.org,
        bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org, chainsaw@...too.org,
        christian.brauner@...ntu.com, chuck.lever@...cle.com,
        davem@...emloft.net, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com, jmorris@...ei.org,
        josh@...htriplett.org, keescook@...omium.org,
        keyrings@...r.kernel.org, kuba@...nel.org,
        lars.ellenberg@...bit.com, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com,
        philipp.reisner@...bit.com, ravenexp@...il.com,
        roopa@...ulusnetworks.com, serge@...lyn.com, slyfox@...too.org,
        viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, yangtiezhu@...ngson.cn,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, markward@...ux.ibm.com,
        linux-s390 <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: umh: fix processed error when UMH_WAIT_PROC is used
 seems to break linux bridge on s390x (bisected)

On Fri, Jul 03, 2020 at 09:52:01AM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> On 2020/07/03 4:46, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> > The alternative to making a compromise is using generic wrappers for
> > things which make sense and letting the callers use those.
> 
> I suggest just introducing KWIFEXITED()/KWEXITSTATUS()/KWIFSIGNALED()/KWTERMSIG()
> macros and fixing the callers, for some callers are not aware of possibility of
> KWIFSIGNALED() case.

OK so we open code all uses. Do that in a next iteration.

  Luis