From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Richard Guy Briggs Subject: Re: [PATCH V6 07/10] sched: add a macro to ref all CLONE_NEW* flags Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 18:00:04 -0400 Message-ID: <20150417220004.GB26233@madcap2.tricolour.ca> References: <20150417081843.GE23123@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20150417154250.GA26233@madcap2.tricolour.ca> <20150417174131.GL23123@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150417174131.GL23123-ndre7Fmf5hadTX5a5knrm8zTDFooKrT+cvkQGrU6aU0@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org Errors-To: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: linux-api-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, containers-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, pmoore-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, linux-audit-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, eparis-FjpueFixGhCM4zKIHC2jIg@public.gmane.org, sgrubb-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, zohar-23VcF4HTsmIX0ybBhKVfKdBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org, mingo-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, ebiederm-aS9lmoZGLiVWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org List-Id: containers.vger.kernel.org On 15/04/17, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 11:42:50AM -0400, Richard Guy Briggs wrote: > > On 15/04/17, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 03:35:54AM -0400, Richard Guy Briggs wrote: > > > > Added the macro CLONE_NEW_MASK_ALL to refer to all CLONE_NEW* flags. > > > > > > A wee bit about why might be nice.. > > > > It makes the following patch much cleaner to read: > > [PATCH V6 08/10] fork: audit on creation of new namespace(s) > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/4/17/50 > > > > I was hoping it might also make a lot of other code cleaner, but most of > > the other places where multiple CLONE_NEW* flags are used, not all six > > are used together, but only 5 are used. Ok, so it is helpful in 1 of 3: > > > > It would actually be useful in check_unshare_flags(): > > https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/v3.17/kernel/fork.c#L1791 > > > > but not in copy_namespaces() or unshare_nsproxy_namespaces(): > > https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/v3.17/kernel/nsproxy.c#L130 > > https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/v3.17/kernel/nsproxy.c#L183 > > Right, so no objections from me on this, its just that I only saw this > one patch in isolation without context and the changelog failed on > rationale. I realize you only saw a small window of this patchset, but this feels like bike shedding about the main objective of the set... I'll add a bit more justification and context if/when I respin for the rest of the set. > Does it perchance make sense to fold this patch into the next patch that > actually makes use of it? It would if it were the only potential user. I don't want to bury a surprise in something bigger. Is there a preferred way to use such a macro to make the other three examples cleaner, or is that just useless churn and obfuscation? Would there be a concise way to express all CLONE_NEW* flags *except* user? - RGB -- Richard Guy Briggs Senior Software Engineer, Kernel Security, AMER ENG Base Operating Systems, Red Hat Remote, Ottawa, Canada Voice: +1.647.777.2635, Internal: (81) 32635, Alt: +1.613.693.0684x3545 From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753763AbbDQWAp (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Apr 2015 18:00:45 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:37817 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932188AbbDQWAk (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Apr 2015 18:00:40 -0400 Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 18:00:04 -0400 From: Richard Guy Briggs To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-audit@redhat.com, sgrubb@redhat.com, eparis@parisplace.org, pmoore@redhat.com, arozansk@redhat.com, ebiederm@xmission.com, serge@hallyn.com, zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH V6 07/10] sched: add a macro to ref all CLONE_NEW* flags Message-ID: <20150417220004.GB26233@madcap2.tricolour.ca> References: <20150417081843.GE23123@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20150417154250.GA26233@madcap2.tricolour.ca> <20150417174131.GL23123@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150417174131.GL23123@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 15/04/17, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 11:42:50AM -0400, Richard Guy Briggs wrote: > > On 15/04/17, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 03:35:54AM -0400, Richard Guy Briggs wrote: > > > > Added the macro CLONE_NEW_MASK_ALL to refer to all CLONE_NEW* flags. > > > > > > A wee bit about why might be nice.. > > > > It makes the following patch much cleaner to read: > > [PATCH V6 08/10] fork: audit on creation of new namespace(s) > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/4/17/50 > > > > I was hoping it might also make a lot of other code cleaner, but most of > > the other places where multiple CLONE_NEW* flags are used, not all six > > are used together, but only 5 are used. Ok, so it is helpful in 1 of 3: > > > > It would actually be useful in check_unshare_flags(): > > https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/v3.17/kernel/fork.c#L1791 > > > > but not in copy_namespaces() or unshare_nsproxy_namespaces(): > > https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/v3.17/kernel/nsproxy.c#L130 > > https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/v3.17/kernel/nsproxy.c#L183 > > Right, so no objections from me on this, its just that I only saw this > one patch in isolation without context and the changelog failed on > rationale. I realize you only saw a small window of this patchset, but this feels like bike shedding about the main objective of the set... I'll add a bit more justification and context if/when I respin for the rest of the set. > Does it perchance make sense to fold this patch into the next patch that > actually makes use of it? It would if it were the only potential user. I don't want to bury a surprise in something bigger. Is there a preferred way to use such a macro to make the other three examples cleaner, or is that just useless churn and obfuscation? Would there be a concise way to express all CLONE_NEW* flags *except* user? - RGB -- Richard Guy Briggs Senior Software Engineer, Kernel Security, AMER ENG Base Operating Systems, Red Hat Remote, Ottawa, Canada Voice: +1.647.777.2635, Internal: (81) 32635, Alt: +1.613.693.0684x3545