On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 2:04 PM Amol Grover <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 09:17:41AM -0400, Richard Guy Briggs wrote: > > On 2020-05-24 13:41, Amol Grover wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 02, 2020 at 11:26:38AM +0530, Amol Grover wrote: > > > > task_struct::cred (subjective credentials) is *always* used > > > > task-synchronously, hence, does not require RCU semantics. > > > > > > > > task_struct::real_cred (objective credentials) can be used in > > > > RCU context and its __rcu annotation is retained. > > > > > > > > However, task_struct::cred and task_struct::real_cred *may* > > > > point to the same object, hence, the object pointed to by > > > > task_struct::cred *may* have RCU delayed freeing. > > > > > > > > Suggested-by: Jann Horn <[email protected]> > > > > Co-developed-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <[email protected]> > > > > Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <[email protected]> > > > > Signed-off-by: Amol Grover <[email protected]> > > > > > > Hello everyone, > > > > > > Could you please go through patches 1/3 and 2/3 and if deemed OK, give > > > your acks. I sent the original patch in beginning of February (~4 months > > > back) and resent the patches again in beginning of April due to lack of > > > traffic. Paul Moore was kind enough to ack twice - the 3/3 and its > > > resend patch. However these 2 patches still remain. I'd really > > > appreciate if someone reviewed them. > > > > I asked on April 3 which upstream tree you expect this patchset to go > > through and I did not see a reply. Do you have a specific target or is > > the large addressee list assuming someone else is taking this set? All > > we have seen is that it is not intended to go through the audit tree. > > > > Apologies for it. As Paul Moore replied, initially I assumed this > patchset to not go through the audit tree as the audit specific changes > were secondary to the main change (though certainly I did not think > which upstream tree the patchset would go through). But now I am okay > with the patchset making it to upstream via audit tree if it is fine by > the maintainers.
This patchset is not appropriate for the audit tree as the most significant changes are not audit related. My ACK on patch 3/3 was, and is, conditional on the previous patches being acceptable to the greater kernel community; this is the main reason why I didn't ACK patch 1/3 or 2/3. -- paul moore www.paul-moore.com
