Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1034397AbcJ1CY5 (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Oct 2016 22:24:57 -0400 Received: from out01.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.231]:35594 "EHLO out01.mta.xmission.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1034144AbcJ1CY4 (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Oct 2016 22:24:56 -0400 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) To: Cyrill Gorcunov Cc: Kees Cook , Andrey Vagin , LKML , Pavel Emelyanov , Linux Containers , Jann Horn References: <20161024105959.GQ1847@uranus.lan> <8760oh8tbp.fsf@xmission.com> <20161024202925.GS1847@uranus.lan> <8760oh737b.fsf@xmission.com> <20161025090213.GX1847@uranus.lan> <87d1ilrdmt.fsf_-_@xmission.com> <20161027213918.GA1922@uranus.lan> <20161027223430.GC1922@uranus.lan> Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2016 21:22:38 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20161027223430.GC1922@uranus.lan> (Cyrill Gorcunov's message of "Fri, 28 Oct 2016 01:34:30 +0300") Message-ID: <8760odnrf5.fsf@xmission.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-XM-SPF: eid=1bzwqk-0008SY-06;;;mid=<8760odnrf5.fsf@xmission.com>;;;hst=in01.mta.xmission.com;;;ip=75.170.125.99;;;frm=ebiederm@xmission.com;;;spf=neutral X-XM-AID: U2FsdGVkX1+M4h+DQSpBqSbGSkOYYRkR7f/HyZnmrxA= X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 75.170.125.99 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: ebiederm@xmission.com X-Spam-Report: * -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP * 0.0 TVD_RCVD_IP Message was received from an IP address * 1.5 TR_Symld_Words too many words that have symbols inside * 0.7 XMSubLong Long Subject * 0.0 T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG BODY: No description available. * 0.8 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 40 to 60% * [score: 0.4998] * -0.0 DCC_CHECK_NEGATIVE Not listed in DCC * [sa04 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1] * 0.1 XMSolicitRefs_0 Weightloss drug X-Spam-DCC: XMission; sa04 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1 X-Spam-Combo: **;Cyrill Gorcunov X-Spam-Relay-Country: X-Spam-Timing: total 543 ms - load_scoreonly_sql: 0.05 (0.0%), signal_user_changed: 7 (1.4%), b_tie_ro: 6 (1.1%), parse: 1.29 (0.2%), extract_message_metadata: 16 (3.0%), get_uri_detail_list: 2.7 (0.5%), tests_pri_-1000: 7 (1.2%), tests_pri_-950: 1.10 (0.2%), tests_pri_-900: 0.91 (0.2%), tests_pri_-400: 44 (8.1%), check_bayes: 42 (7.8%), b_tokenize: 7 (1.2%), b_tok_get_all: 17 (3.1%), b_comp_prob: 2.5 (0.5%), b_tok_touch_all: 10 (1.9%), b_finish: 0.95 (0.2%), tests_pri_0: 381 (70.2%), check_dkim_signature: 0.48 (0.1%), check_dkim_adsp: 4.2 (0.8%), tests_pri_500: 81 (14.9%), poll_dns_idle: 72 (13.2%), rewrite_mail: 0.00 (0.0%) Subject: Re: [REVIEW][PATCH v2] mm: Add a user_ns owner to mm_struct and fix ptrace permission checks X-Spam-Flag: No X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Thu, 05 May 2016 13:38:54 -0600) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on in01.mta.xmission.com) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1780 Lines: 46 Cyrill Gorcunov writes: > On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 12:39:18AM +0300, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 10:54:34AM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> > >> > >> > I can't imagine either of these changes making a practical difference >> > to anyone but I am calling them out in case someone can. >> > >> > include/linux/mm_types.h | 1 + >> > kernel/fork.c | 9 ++++++--- >> > kernel/ptrace.c | 26 +++++++++++--------------- >> > mm/init-mm.c | 2 ++ >> > 4 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-) >> >> Thanks a huge, Eric! And really sorry for delay in response, >> I managed to miss this quite important mail for me in mail >> storm. Gonna test it and will write you the results. Overall looks >> great, but better be sure and run the tests. >> >> Reviewed-by: Cyrill Gorcunov > > Eric, on which kernel the patch is on top of? > It doesn't apply on linux-next for some reason. > > | Date: Thu Oct 27 14:21:59 2016 +1100 > | > | Add linux-next specific files for 20161027 > | > | Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell > > I applied it on Linus' master and tests passed fine > (but they were passing fine even without the patch, > only linux-next failed). Odd. I don't think I have taken the old version out of linux-next yet. So you can probably revert the old version out of linux-next and apply this one. All of my development at this point is against v4.9-rc1. I suspect you will find my last version on top of against v4.9-rc1 will pass. Since my tree is only one deep and I don't think anyone except linux-next is based on it, I plan to drop and readd this patch. Especially since it is candidate for backporting. Eric