All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io>
Cc: jannh@google.com, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk,
	torvalds@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	arnd@arndb.de, akpm@linux-foundation.org, cyphar@cyphar.com,
	dhowells@redhat.com, ebiederm@xmission.com,
	elena.reshetova@intel.com, keescook@chromium.org,
	luto@amacapital.net, luto@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de,
	linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org, linux-mips@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
	linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org,
	sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org,
	linux-api@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, joel@joelfernandes.org,
	dancol@google.com, serge@hallyn.c
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] pid: add pidfd_open()
Date: Thu, 16 May 2019 14:27:00 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190516142659.GB22564@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190516135944.7205-1-christian@brauner.io>

On 05/16, Christian Brauner wrote:
>
> With the introduction of pidfds through CLONE_PIDFD it is possible to
> created pidfds at process creation time.

Now I am wondering why do we need CLONE_PIDFD, you can just do

	pid = fork();
	pidfd_open(pid);

> +SYSCALL_DEFINE2(pidfd_open, pid_t, pid, unsigned int, flags)
> +{
> +	int fd, ret;
> +	struct pid *p;
> +	struct task_struct *tsk;
> +
> +	if (flags)
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +
> +	if (pid <= 0)
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +
> +	p = find_get_pid(pid);
> +	if (!p)
> +		return -ESRCH;
> +
> +	ret = 0;
> +	rcu_read_lock();
> +	/*
> +	 * If this returns non-NULL the pid was used as a thread-group
> +	 * leader. Note, we race with exec here: If it changes the
> +	 * thread-group leader we might return the old leader.
> +	 */
> +	tsk = pid_task(p, PIDTYPE_TGID);
> +	if (!tsk)
> +		ret = -ESRCH;
> +	rcu_read_unlock();
> +
> +	fd = ret ?: pidfd_create(p);
> +	put_pid(p);
> +	return fd;
> +}

Looks correct, feel free to add Reviewed-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>

But why do we need task_struct *tsk?

	rcu_read_lock();
	if (!pid_task(PIDTYPE_TGID))
		ret = -ESRCH;
	rcu_read_unlock();

and in fact we do not even need rcu_read_lock(), we could do

	// shut up rcu_dereference_check()
	rcu_lock_acquire(&rcu_lock_map);
	if (!pid_task(PIDTYPE_TGID))
		ret = -ESRCH;
	rcu_lock_release(&rcu_lock_map);

Well... I won't insist, but the comment about the race with exec looks a bit
confusing to me. It is true, but we do not care at all, we are not going to
use the task_struct returned by pid_task().

Oleg.

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io>
Cc: jannh@google.com, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk,
	torvalds@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	arnd@arndb.de, akpm@linux-foundation.org, cyphar@cyphar.com,
	dhowells@redhat.com, ebiederm@xmission.com,
	elena.reshetova@intel.com, keescook@chromium.org,
	luto@amacapital.net, luto@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de,
	linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org, linux-mips@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
	linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org,
	sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org,
	linux-api@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, joel@joelfernandes.org,
	dancol@google.com, serge@hallyn.com,
	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] pid: add pidfd_open()
Date: Thu, 16 May 2019 16:27:00 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190516142659.GB22564@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190516135944.7205-1-christian@brauner.io>

On 05/16, Christian Brauner wrote:
>
> With the introduction of pidfds through CLONE_PIDFD it is possible to
> created pidfds at process creation time.

Now I am wondering why do we need CLONE_PIDFD, you can just do

	pid = fork();
	pidfd_open(pid);

> +SYSCALL_DEFINE2(pidfd_open, pid_t, pid, unsigned int, flags)
> +{
> +	int fd, ret;
> +	struct pid *p;
> +	struct task_struct *tsk;
> +
> +	if (flags)
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +
> +	if (pid <= 0)
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +
> +	p = find_get_pid(pid);
> +	if (!p)
> +		return -ESRCH;
> +
> +	ret = 0;
> +	rcu_read_lock();
> +	/*
> +	 * If this returns non-NULL the pid was used as a thread-group
> +	 * leader. Note, we race with exec here: If it changes the
> +	 * thread-group leader we might return the old leader.
> +	 */
> +	tsk = pid_task(p, PIDTYPE_TGID);
> +	if (!tsk)
> +		ret = -ESRCH;
> +	rcu_read_unlock();
> +
> +	fd = ret ?: pidfd_create(p);
> +	put_pid(p);
> +	return fd;
> +}

Looks correct, feel free to add Reviewed-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>

But why do we need task_struct *tsk?

	rcu_read_lock();
	if (!pid_task(PIDTYPE_TGID))
		ret = -ESRCH;
	rcu_read_unlock();

and in fact we do not even need rcu_read_lock(), we could do

	// shut up rcu_dereference_check()
	rcu_lock_acquire(&rcu_lock_map);
	if (!pid_task(PIDTYPE_TGID))
		ret = -ESRCH;
	rcu_lock_release(&rcu_lock_map);

Well... I won't insist, but the comment about the race with exec looks a bit
confusing to me. It is true, but we do not care at all, we are not going to
use the task_struct returned by pid_task().

Oleg.


WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io>
Cc: jannh@google.com, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk,
	torvalds@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	arnd@arndb.de, akpm@linux-foundation.org, cyphar@cyphar.com,
	dhowells@redhat.com, ebiederm@xmission.com,
	elena.reshetova@intel.com, keescook@chromium.org,
	luto@amacapital.net, luto@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de,
	linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org, linux-mips@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
	linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org,
	sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org,
	linux-api@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, joel@joelfernandes.org,
	dancol@google.com, serge@hallyn.c
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] pid: add pidfd_open()
Date: Thu, 16 May 2019 16:27:00 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190516142659.GB22564@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190516135944.7205-1-christian@brauner.io>

On 05/16, Christian Brauner wrote:
>
> With the introduction of pidfds through CLONE_PIDFD it is possible to
> created pidfds at process creation time.

Now I am wondering why do we need CLONE_PIDFD, you can just do

	pid = fork();
	pidfd_open(pid);

> +SYSCALL_DEFINE2(pidfd_open, pid_t, pid, unsigned int, flags)
> +{
> +	int fd, ret;
> +	struct pid *p;
> +	struct task_struct *tsk;
> +
> +	if (flags)
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +
> +	if (pid <= 0)
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +
> +	p = find_get_pid(pid);
> +	if (!p)
> +		return -ESRCH;
> +
> +	ret = 0;
> +	rcu_read_lock();
> +	/*
> +	 * If this returns non-NULL the pid was used as a thread-group
> +	 * leader. Note, we race with exec here: If it changes the
> +	 * thread-group leader we might return the old leader.
> +	 */
> +	tsk = pid_task(p, PIDTYPE_TGID);
> +	if (!tsk)
> +		ret = -ESRCH;
> +	rcu_read_unlock();
> +
> +	fd = ret ?: pidfd_create(p);
> +	put_pid(p);
> +	return fd;
> +}

Looks correct, feel free to add Reviewed-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>

But why do we need task_struct *tsk?

	rcu_read_lock();
	if (!pid_task(PIDTYPE_TGID))
		ret = -ESRCH;
	rcu_read_unlock();

and in fact we do not even need rcu_read_lock(), we could do

	// shut up rcu_dereference_check()
	rcu_lock_acquire(&rcu_lock_map);
	if (!pid_task(PIDTYPE_TGID))
		ret = -ESRCH;
	rcu_lock_release(&rcu_lock_map);

Well... I won't insist, but the comment about the race with exec looks a bit
confusing to me. It is true, but we do not care at all, we are not going to
use the task_struct returned by pid_task().

Oleg.

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: oleg at redhat.com (Oleg Nesterov)
Subject: [PATCH v1 1/2] pid: add pidfd_open()
Date: Thu, 16 May 2019 16:27:00 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190516142659.GB22564@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190516135944.7205-1-christian@brauner.io>

On 05/16, Christian Brauner wrote:
>
> With the introduction of pidfds through CLONE_PIDFD it is possible to
> created pidfds at process creation time.

Now I am wondering why do we need CLONE_PIDFD, you can just do

	pid = fork();
	pidfd_open(pid);

> +SYSCALL_DEFINE2(pidfd_open, pid_t, pid, unsigned int, flags)
> +{
> +	int fd, ret;
> +	struct pid *p;
> +	struct task_struct *tsk;
> +
> +	if (flags)
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +
> +	if (pid <= 0)
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +
> +	p = find_get_pid(pid);
> +	if (!p)
> +		return -ESRCH;
> +
> +	ret = 0;
> +	rcu_read_lock();
> +	/*
> +	 * If this returns non-NULL the pid was used as a thread-group
> +	 * leader. Note, we race with exec here: If it changes the
> +	 * thread-group leader we might return the old leader.
> +	 */
> +	tsk = pid_task(p, PIDTYPE_TGID);
> +	if (!tsk)
> +		ret = -ESRCH;
> +	rcu_read_unlock();
> +
> +	fd = ret ?: pidfd_create(p);
> +	put_pid(p);
> +	return fd;
> +}

Looks correct, feel free to add Reviewed-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg at redhat.com>

But why do we need task_struct *tsk?

	rcu_read_lock();
	if (!pid_task(PIDTYPE_TGID))
		ret = -ESRCH;
	rcu_read_unlock();

and in fact we do not even need rcu_read_lock(), we could do

	// shut up rcu_dereference_check()
	rcu_lock_acquire(&rcu_lock_map);
	if (!pid_task(PIDTYPE_TGID))
		ret = -ESRCH;
	rcu_lock_release(&rcu_lock_map);

Well... I won't insist, but the comment about the race with exec looks a bit
confusing to me. It is true, but we do not care at all, we are not going to
use the task_struct returned by pid_task().

Oleg.

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: oleg@redhat.com (Oleg Nesterov)
Subject: [PATCH v1 1/2] pid: add pidfd_open()
Date: Thu, 16 May 2019 16:27:00 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190516142659.GB22564@redhat.com> (raw)
Message-ID: <20190516142700.0vIF33oalLWDvC1q9NyUt3ueeFLIPO-FWZd8omNQgQk@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190516135944.7205-1-christian@brauner.io>

On 05/16, Christian Brauner wrote:
>
> With the introduction of pidfds through CLONE_PIDFD it is possible to
> created pidfds at process creation time.

Now I am wondering why do we need CLONE_PIDFD, you can just do

	pid = fork();
	pidfd_open(pid);

> +SYSCALL_DEFINE2(pidfd_open, pid_t, pid, unsigned int, flags)
> +{
> +	int fd, ret;
> +	struct pid *p;
> +	struct task_struct *tsk;
> +
> +	if (flags)
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +
> +	if (pid <= 0)
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +
> +	p = find_get_pid(pid);
> +	if (!p)
> +		return -ESRCH;
> +
> +	ret = 0;
> +	rcu_read_lock();
> +	/*
> +	 * If this returns non-NULL the pid was used as a thread-group
> +	 * leader. Note, we race with exec here: If it changes the
> +	 * thread-group leader we might return the old leader.
> +	 */
> +	tsk = pid_task(p, PIDTYPE_TGID);
> +	if (!tsk)
> +		ret = -ESRCH;
> +	rcu_read_unlock();
> +
> +	fd = ret ?: pidfd_create(p);
> +	put_pid(p);
> +	return fd;
> +}

Looks correct, feel free to add Reviewed-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg at redhat.com>

But why do we need task_struct *tsk?

	rcu_read_lock();
	if (!pid_task(PIDTYPE_TGID))
		ret = -ESRCH;
	rcu_read_unlock();

and in fact we do not even need rcu_read_lock(), we could do

	// shut up rcu_dereference_check()
	rcu_lock_acquire(&rcu_lock_map);
	if (!pid_task(PIDTYPE_TGID))
		ret = -ESRCH;
	rcu_lock_release(&rcu_lock_map);

Well... I won't insist, but the comment about the race with exec looks a bit
confusing to me. It is true, but we do not care at all, we are not going to
use the task_struct returned by pid_task().

Oleg.

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io>
Cc: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, dhowells@redhat.com,
	joel@joelfernandes.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
	sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org,
	elena.reshetova@intel.com, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, dancol@google.com,
	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
	serge@hallyn.com, linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org,
	keescook@chromium.org, arnd@arndb.de, jannh@google.com,
	linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk,
	luto@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org, cyphar@cyphar.com,
	torvalds@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	luto@amacapital.net, ebiederm@xmission.com,
	linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
	linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] pid: add pidfd_open()
Date: Thu, 16 May 2019 16:27:00 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190516142659.GB22564@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190516135944.7205-1-christian@brauner.io>

On 05/16, Christian Brauner wrote:
>
> With the introduction of pidfds through CLONE_PIDFD it is possible to
> created pidfds at process creation time.

Now I am wondering why do we need CLONE_PIDFD, you can just do

	pid = fork();
	pidfd_open(pid);

> +SYSCALL_DEFINE2(pidfd_open, pid_t, pid, unsigned int, flags)
> +{
> +	int fd, ret;
> +	struct pid *p;
> +	struct task_struct *tsk;
> +
> +	if (flags)
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +
> +	if (pid <= 0)
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +
> +	p = find_get_pid(pid);
> +	if (!p)
> +		return -ESRCH;
> +
> +	ret = 0;
> +	rcu_read_lock();
> +	/*
> +	 * If this returns non-NULL the pid was used as a thread-group
> +	 * leader. Note, we race with exec here: If it changes the
> +	 * thread-group leader we might return the old leader.
> +	 */
> +	tsk = pid_task(p, PIDTYPE_TGID);
> +	if (!tsk)
> +		ret = -ESRCH;
> +	rcu_read_unlock();
> +
> +	fd = ret ?: pidfd_create(p);
> +	put_pid(p);
> +	return fd;
> +}

Looks correct, feel free to add Reviewed-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>

But why do we need task_struct *tsk?

	rcu_read_lock();
	if (!pid_task(PIDTYPE_TGID))
		ret = -ESRCH;
	rcu_read_unlock();

and in fact we do not even need rcu_read_lock(), we could do

	// shut up rcu_dereference_check()
	rcu_lock_acquire(&rcu_lock_map);
	if (!pid_task(PIDTYPE_TGID))
		ret = -ESRCH;
	rcu_lock_release(&rcu_lock_map);

Well... I won't insist, but the comment about the race with exec looks a bit
confusing to me. It is true, but we do not care at all, we are not going to
use the task_struct returned by pid_task().

Oleg.


WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io>
Cc: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, dhowells@redhat.com,
	joel@joelfernandes.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
	sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org,
	elena.reshetova@intel.com, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, dancol@google.com,
	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
	serge@hallyn.com, linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org,
	keescook@chromium.org, arnd@arndb.de, jannh@google.com,
	linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk,
	luto@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org, cyphar@cyphar.com,
	torvalds@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	luto@amacapital.net, ebiederm@xmission.com,
	linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
	linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] pid: add pidfd_open()
Date: Thu, 16 May 2019 16:27:00 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190516142659.GB22564@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190516135944.7205-1-christian@brauner.io>

On 05/16, Christian Brauner wrote:
>
> With the introduction of pidfds through CLONE_PIDFD it is possible to
> created pidfds at process creation time.

Now I am wondering why do we need CLONE_PIDFD, you can just do

	pid = fork();
	pidfd_open(pid);

> +SYSCALL_DEFINE2(pidfd_open, pid_t, pid, unsigned int, flags)
> +{
> +	int fd, ret;
> +	struct pid *p;
> +	struct task_struct *tsk;
> +
> +	if (flags)
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +
> +	if (pid <= 0)
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +
> +	p = find_get_pid(pid);
> +	if (!p)
> +		return -ESRCH;
> +
> +	ret = 0;
> +	rcu_read_lock();
> +	/*
> +	 * If this returns non-NULL the pid was used as a thread-group
> +	 * leader. Note, we race with exec here: If it changes the
> +	 * thread-group leader we might return the old leader.
> +	 */
> +	tsk = pid_task(p, PIDTYPE_TGID);
> +	if (!tsk)
> +		ret = -ESRCH;
> +	rcu_read_unlock();
> +
> +	fd = ret ?: pidfd_create(p);
> +	put_pid(p);
> +	return fd;
> +}

Looks correct, feel free to add Reviewed-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>

But why do we need task_struct *tsk?

	rcu_read_lock();
	if (!pid_task(PIDTYPE_TGID))
		ret = -ESRCH;
	rcu_read_unlock();

and in fact we do not even need rcu_read_lock(), we could do

	// shut up rcu_dereference_check()
	rcu_lock_acquire(&rcu_lock_map);
	if (!pid_task(PIDTYPE_TGID))
		ret = -ESRCH;
	rcu_lock_release(&rcu_lock_map);

Well... I won't insist, but the comment about the race with exec looks a bit
confusing to me. It is true, but we do not care at all, we are not going to
use the task_struct returned by pid_task().

Oleg.


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

  parent reply	other threads:[~2019-05-16 14:27 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 95+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-05-16 13:59 [PATCH v1 1/2] pid: add pidfd_open() Christian Brauner
2019-05-16 13:59 ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-16 13:59 ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-16 13:59 ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-16 13:59 ` christian
2019-05-16 13:59 ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-16 13:59 ` [PATCH v1 2/2] tests: add pidfd_open() tests Christian Brauner
2019-05-16 13:59   ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-16 13:59   ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-16 13:59   ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-16 13:59   ` christian
2019-05-16 13:59   ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-16 14:27 ` Oleg Nesterov [this message]
2019-05-16 14:27   ` [PATCH v1 1/2] pid: add pidfd_open() Oleg Nesterov
2019-05-16 14:27   ` Oleg Nesterov
2019-05-16 14:27   ` Oleg Nesterov
2019-05-16 14:27   ` oleg
2019-05-16 14:27   ` Oleg Nesterov
2019-05-16 14:27   ` Oleg Nesterov
2019-05-16 14:56   ` Aleksa Sarai
2019-05-16 14:56     ` Aleksa Sarai
2019-05-16 14:56     ` Aleksa Sarai
2019-05-16 14:56     ` Aleksa Sarai
2019-05-16 14:56     ` Aleksa Sarai
2019-05-16 14:56     ` cyphar
2019-05-16 14:56     ` Aleksa Sarai
2019-05-16 14:56     ` Aleksa Sarai
2019-05-16 15:06     ` Oleg Nesterov
2019-05-16 15:06       ` Oleg Nesterov
2019-05-16 15:06       ` Oleg Nesterov
2019-05-16 15:06       ` Oleg Nesterov
2019-05-16 15:06       ` Oleg Nesterov
2019-05-16 15:06       ` oleg
2019-05-16 15:06       ` Oleg Nesterov
2019-05-16 15:06       ` Oleg Nesterov
2019-05-16 15:12       ` Aleksa Sarai
2019-05-16 15:12         ` Aleksa Sarai
2019-05-16 15:12         ` Aleksa Sarai
2019-05-16 15:12         ` Aleksa Sarai
2019-05-16 15:12         ` Aleksa Sarai
2019-05-16 15:12         ` cyphar
2019-05-16 15:12         ` Aleksa Sarai
2019-05-16 15:12         ` Aleksa Sarai
2019-05-16 15:22         ` Oleg Nesterov
2019-05-16 15:22           ` Oleg Nesterov
2019-05-16 15:22           ` Oleg Nesterov
2019-05-16 15:22           ` Oleg Nesterov
2019-05-16 15:22           ` Oleg Nesterov
2019-05-16 15:22           ` oleg
2019-05-16 15:22           ` Oleg Nesterov
2019-05-16 15:22           ` Oleg Nesterov
2019-05-16 15:29           ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-16 15:29             ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-16 15:29             ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-16 15:29             ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-16 15:29             ` christian
2019-05-16 15:29             ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-16 15:29             ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-16 14:57   ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-16 14:57     ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-16 14:57     ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-16 14:57     ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-16 14:57     ` christian
2019-05-16 14:57     ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-16 14:57     ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-16 14:56 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2019-05-16 14:56   ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2019-05-16 14:56   ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2019-05-16 14:56   ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2019-05-16 14:56   ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2019-05-16 14:56   ` geert
2019-05-16 14:56   ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2019-05-16 14:56   ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2019-05-16 14:58   ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-16 14:58     ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-16 14:58     ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-16 14:58     ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-16 14:58     ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-16 14:58     ` christian
2019-05-16 14:58     ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-16 14:58     ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-18  9:48 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-05-18  9:48   ` Joel Fernandes
2019-05-18  9:48   ` Joel Fernandes
2019-05-18  9:48   ` Joel Fernandes
2019-05-18  9:48   ` joel
2019-05-18  9:48   ` Joel Fernandes
2019-05-18  9:48   ` Joel Fernandes
2019-05-18 10:04   ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-18 10:04     ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-18 10:04     ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-18 10:04     ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-18 10:04     ` christian
2019-05-18 10:04     ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-18 10:04     ` Christian Brauner

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20190516142659.GB22564@redhat.com \
    --to=oleg@redhat.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=arnd@arndb.de \
    --cc=christian@brauner.io \
    --cc=cyphar@cyphar.com \
    --cc=dancol@google.com \
    --cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
    --cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
    --cc=elena.reshetova@intel.com \
    --cc=jannh@google.com \
    --cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
    --cc=keescook@chromium.org \
    --cc=linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-api@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org \
    --cc=linux-mips@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-sh@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org \
    --cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
    --cc=luto@amacapital.net \
    --cc=luto@kernel.org \
    --cc=serge@hallyn.c \
    --cc=sparclinux@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.