Re: [PATCH net-next v6 1/3] scm: add SO_PASSPIDFD and SCM_PIDFD

From: Aleksandr Mikhalitsyn <aleksandr.mikhalitsyn@canonical.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Cc: Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org>,
	Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>,
	davem@davemloft.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
	Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
	Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>,
	David Ahern <dsahern@kernel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
	Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@amazon.com>,
	Lennart Poettering <mzxreary@0pointer.de>,
	linux-arch@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v6 1/3] scm: add SO_PASSPIDFD and SCM_PIDFD
Date: Wed, 24 May 2023 17:45:25 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAEivzxcTEghPqk=9hQMReSGzE=ruWnJyiuPhW5rGd7eUOEg12A@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230524081933.44dc8bea@kernel.org>

On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 5:19 PM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 24 May 2023 11:47:50 +0100 Luca Boccassi wrote:
> > > I will send SO_PEERPIDFD as an independent patch too, because it
> > > doesn't require this change with CONFIG_UNIX
> > > and we can avoid waiting until CONFIG_UNIX change will be merged.
> > > I've a feeling that the discussion around making CONFIG_UNIX  to be a
> > > boolean won't be easy and fast ;-)
> >
> > Thank you, that sounds great to me, I can start using SO_PEERPIDFD
> > independently of SCM_PIDFD, there's no hard dependency between the
> > two.
>
> How about you put the UNIX -> bool patch at the end of the series,
> (making it a 4 patch series) and if there's a discussion about it
> I'll just skip it and apply the first 3 patches?

Sure, I will do that!

>
> In the (IMHO more likely) case that there isn't a discussion it saves
> me from remembering to chase you to send that patch ;)

Thanks a lot, Jakub!

Kind regards,
Alex