From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933068AbdDEQJB (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Apr 2017 12:09:01 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:32778 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754848AbdDEQI7 (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Apr 2017 12:08:59 -0400 DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com A0C0D3D954 Authentication-Results: ext-mx06.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: ext-mx06.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=oleg@redhat.com DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mx1.redhat.com A0C0D3D954 Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 18:08:45 +0200 From: Oleg Nesterov To: "Eric W. Biederman" Cc: Andrew Morton , Aleksa Sarai , Andy Lutomirski , Attila Fazekas , Jann Horn , Kees Cook , Michal Hocko , Ulrich Obergfell , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: scope of cred_guard_mutex. Message-ID: <20170405160845.GA14536@redhat.com> References: <87tw7axlr0.fsf@xmission.com> <87d1dyw5iw.fsf@xmission.com> <87tw7aunuh.fsf@xmission.com> <87lgsmunmj.fsf_-_@xmission.com> <20170304170312.GB13131@redhat.com> <8760ir192p.fsf@xmission.com> <20170402161518.GC12637@redhat.com> <87inmmbjsq.fsf@xmission.com> <20170403183728.GB31390@redhat.com> <87fuhpjeco.fsf_-_@xmission.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87fuhpjeco.fsf_-_@xmission.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.30]); Wed, 05 Apr 2017 16:08:58 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 04/03, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > You have asked why I have problems with your patch and so I am going to > try to explain. Partly I want to see a clean set of patches that we > can merge into Linus's tree before we make any compromises. Because the > work preparing a clean patchset may inform us of something better. Plus > we need to make something clean and long term maintainable in any event. > > Partly I object because your understanding and my understanding of > cred_guard_mutex are very different. And I think there is another problem, your understanding and my understanding of "clean" differ too much and it seems that we can not convince each other ;) The last series looks buggy (I'll send more emails later today), but the main problem is that - in my opinion! - your approach is "obviously wrong and much less clean". But yes, yes, I understand that this is my opinion, and I can be wrong. Eric, I think we need more CC's. Linus, probably security list, the more the better. I am going to resend my series with more CC's, then you can nack it and explain what you think we should do. Perhaps someone else will suggest a better solution, or at least review the patches. OK? Oleg.