Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753039AbcKSSiD (ORCPT ); Sat, 19 Nov 2016 13:38:03 -0500 Received: from out02.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.232]:56357 "EHLO out02.mta.xmission.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752234AbcKSSiA (ORCPT ); Sat, 19 Nov 2016 13:38:00 -0500 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) To: Willy Tarreau Cc: Linux Containers , Oleg Nesterov , "linux-kernel\@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-mm\@kvack.org" , Linux FS Devel , Michal Hocko , Jann Horn , Kees Cook , Andy Lutomirski References: <87k2d5nytz.fsf_-_@xmission.com> <87y41kjn6l.fsf@xmission.com> <20161019172917.GE1210@laptop.thejh.net> <87pomwi5p2.fsf@xmission.com> <87pomwghda.fsf@xmission.com> <87twb6avk8.fsf_-_@xmission.com> <20161119071700.GA13347@1wt.eu> Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2016 12:35:16 -0600 In-Reply-To: <20161119071700.GA13347@1wt.eu> (Willy Tarreau's message of "Sat, 19 Nov 2016 08:17:00 +0100") Message-ID: <87d1hrjp23.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=1c8AWM-0000gF-Of;;;mid=<87d1hrjp23.fsf@xmission.com>;;;hst=in01.mta.xmission.com;;;ip=75.170.125.99;;;frm=ebiederm@xmission.com;;;spf=neutral X-XM-AID: U2FsdGVkX1+baYl9MkzTDlvQ4C5YO6irYD16KUBTs88= 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 * 0.7 XMSubLong Long Subject * 1.5 TR_Symld_Words too many words that have symbols inside * 1.5 XMNoVowels Alpha-numberic number with no vowels * 0.0 TVD_RCVD_IP Message was received from an IP address * 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: 0.5000] * -0.0 DCC_CHECK_NEGATIVE Not listed in DCC * [sa02 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1] X-Spam-DCC: XMission; sa02 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1 X-Spam-Combo: ***;Willy Tarreau X-Spam-Relay-Country: X-Spam-Timing: total 5562 ms - load_scoreonly_sql: 0.05 (0.0%), signal_user_changed: 3.8 (0.1%), b_tie_ro: 2.7 (0.0%), parse: 1.21 (0.0%), extract_message_metadata: 23 (0.4%), get_uri_detail_list: 1.73 (0.0%), tests_pri_-1000: 10 (0.2%), tests_pri_-950: 2.1 (0.0%), tests_pri_-900: 1.64 (0.0%), tests_pri_-400: 29 (0.5%), check_bayes: 28 (0.5%), b_tokenize: 9 (0.2%), b_tok_get_all: 7 (0.1%), b_comp_prob: 3.3 (0.1%), b_tok_touch_all: 4.6 (0.1%), b_finish: 0.94 (0.0%), tests_pri_0: 348 (6.3%), check_dkim_signature: 0.86 (0.0%), check_dkim_adsp: 6 (0.1%), tests_pri_500: 5137 (92.4%), poll_dns_idle: 5122 (92.1%), rewrite_mail: 0.00 (0.0%) Subject: Re: [REVIEW][PATCH 0/3] Fixing ptrace vs exec vs userns interactions 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: 788 Lines: 22 Willy Tarreau writes: > Hi Eric, > > On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 11:02:47AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> >> With everyone heading to Kernel Summit and Plumbers I put this set of >> patches down temporarily. Now is the time to take it back up and to >> make certain I am not missing something stupid in this set of patches. > > I couldn't get your patch set to apply to any of the kernels I tried, > I manually adjusted some parts but the second one has too many rejects. > What kernel should I apply this to ? Or maybe some preliminary patches > are needed ? It is against my for-next branch, and there is one patch in there that is significant. The entire patchset should be at: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/ebiederm/user-namespace.git for-next Eric