Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752870AbaFBT72 (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Jun 2014 15:59:28 -0400 Received: from mail-vc0-f179.google.com ([209.85.220.179]:61487 "EHLO mail-vc0-f179.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751338AbaFBT70 (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Jun 2014 15:59:26 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <1400799936-26499-1-git-send-email-keescook@chromium.org> From: Andy Lutomirski Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2014 12:59:06 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/6] seccomp: add PR_SECCOMP_EXT and SECCOMP_EXT_ACT_TSYNC To: Kees Cook Cc: Andrew Morton , Oleg Nesterov , James Morris , Stephen Rothwell , "David S. Miller" , LKML , Will Drewry , Julien Tinnes , Alexei Starovoitov Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 12:47 PM, Kees Cook wrote: > Hi Andrew, > > Would you be willing to carry this series? Andy Lutomirski appears > happy with it now. (Thanks again for all the feedback Andy!) If so, it > has a relatively small merge conflict with the bpf changes living in > net-next. Would you prefer I rebase against net-next, let sfr handle > it, get carried in net-next, or some other option? Well, I'm still not entirely convinced that we want to have this much multiplexing in a prctl, and I'm still a bit unconvinced that the code wouldn't be better off it it were completely atomic in the sense that it would either work or fail without doing anything. --Andy -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/