Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2020 15:42:36 +0200
From: Alexey Gladkov <>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <>
Cc: LKML <>,
	Kernel Hardening <>,
	Linux API <>,
	Linux FS Devel <>,
	Linux Security Module <>,
	Akinobu Mita <>,
	Alexander Viro <>,
	Alexey Dobriyan <>,
	Andrew Morton <>,
	Andy Lutomirski <>,
	Daniel Micay <>,
	Djalal Harouni <>,
	"Dmitry V . Levin" <>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <>,
	Ingo Molnar <>,
	"J . Bruce Fields" <>,
	Jeff Layton <>,
	Jonathan Corbet <>, Kees Cook <>,
	Linus Torvalds <>,
	Oleg Nesterov <>,
	David Howells <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND v11 0/8] proc: modernize proc to support multiple
 private instances

On Thu, Apr 09, 2020 at 07:59:47AM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Alexey Gladkov <> writes:
> > Preface:
> > --------
> > This is patchset v11 to modernize procfs and make it able to support multiple
> > private instances per the same pid namespace.
> >
> > This patchset can be applied on top of:
> >
> >
> > 4b871ce26ab2
> Why the resend?
> Nothing happens until the merge window closes with the release of -rc1
> (almost certainly on this coming Sunday).  I goofed and did not act on
> this faster, and so it is my fault this did not make it into linux-next
> before the merge window.  But I am not going to rush this forward.
> You also ignored my review and have not even descibed why it is safe
> to change the type of a filesystem parameter.
> -	fsparam_u32("hidepid",	Opt_hidepid),
> +	fsparam_string("hidepid",	Opt_hidepid),
> Especially in light of people using fsconfig(fd, FSCONFIG_SET_...);
> All I need is someone to point out that fsparam_u32 does not use

I decided to resend again because I was not sure that the previous
patchset was not lost. I also wanted to ask David to review and explain
about the new API. I in any case did not ignore your question about
changing the type of the parameter.

I guess I was wrong when I sent the whole patchset again. Sorry.

> My apologies for being grumpy but this feels like you are asking me to
> go faster when it is totally inappropriate to do so, while busily
> ignoring my feedback.
> I think this should happen.  But I can't do anything until after -rc1.

I think you misunderstood me. I didn't mean to rush you.

Rgrds, legion

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.