From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753179Ab1GNBaz (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Jul 2011 21:30:55 -0400 Received: from fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp ([192.51.44.35]:53934 "EHLO fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751856Ab1GNBay (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Jul 2011 21:30:54 -0400 X-SecurityPolicyCheck-FJ: OK by FujitsuOutboundMailChecker v1.3.1 Message-ID: <4E1E46CA.9030007@jp.fujitsu.com> Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 10:30:50 +0900 From: KOSAKI Motohiro User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; ja; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110616 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: jmorris@namei.org CC: torvalds@linux-foundation.org, neilb@suse.de, solar@openwall.com, segoon@openwall.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, gregkh@suse.de, akpm@linux-foundation.org, davem@davemloft.net, kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com, jslaby@suse.cz, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, eparis@redhat.com, sds@tycho.nsa.gov Subject: Re: [PATCH] move RLIMIT_NPROC check from set_user() to do_execve_common() References: <20110612130953.GA3709@albatros> <20110706173631.GA5431@albatros> <20110706185932.GB3299@albatros> <20110707075610.GA3411@albatros> <20110707081930.GA4393@albatros> <20110712132723.GA3193@albatros> <20110713091408.0d456352@notabene.brown> <20110713063142.GA19976@openwall.com> <20110713170657.59dae548@notabene.brown> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org (2011/07/14 9:11), James Morris wrote: > On Wed, 13 Jul 2011, Linus Torvalds wrote: > >> It sounds like people are effectively Ack'ing the patch, but with this >> kind of patch I don't want to add the "implicit Ack" that I often do >> for regular stuff. >> >> So could people who think that the patch is ok in its current form >> just send me their acked-by or reviewed-by? I haven't heard any actual >> objection to it, and I think it's valid for the current -rc. >> >> Alternatively, feel free to send a comment like "I think it's the >> right thing, but maybe it should wait for the next merge window".. > > Count me in the latter. > > It does look ok to me, but I'd be happier if it had more testing first (in > -mm perhaps). I think some security folk may be on summer vacation, too. I don't think I am best person to take ack. but I also don't want to hesitate to help Solar's good improvemnt. Reviewed-by: KOSAKI Motohiro And I'll second James. next mere window is probably safer. Thanks.