[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110614142429.GB3966@albatros>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 18:24:29 +0400
From: Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@...nwall.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>,
Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...e.cz>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
WANG Cong <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 02/04] procfs: add hidepid modes as mount options
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 15:54 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Sunday 12 June 2011, Vasiliy Kulikov wrote:
> > +static const match_table_t tokens = {
> > + {Opt_hidepid, "hidepid=%u"},
> > + {Opt_gid, "gid=%u"},
> > + {Opt_hidenet, "hidenet"},
> > + {Opt_nohidenet, "nohidenet"},
> > + {Opt_err, NULL},
> > +};
>
> I don't really have an opinion on your patch, but it seems that it does more than
> the description explains: The hidenet/nohidenet option is in the patch as well,
> although it doesn't have much of an effect.
Correct, it is just a matter of a patch division granularity. Alexey said
the patch should be divided into pid and net parts. I divided it into
(pid + all mount opts parsing) and (actual hidenet usage). As both pid
and net parts depend on options parsing, they are not fully independent,
and cannot be well splitted (or I just don't see how).
--
Vasiliy Kulikov
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
