Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 11 Jul 2019 07:34:29 +0200
From:   Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] clone3 for v5.3
Message-ID: <20190711053428.ofapcx7nn5xkyru4@brauner.io>
References: <20190708150042.11590-1-christian@brauner.io>
 <CAHk-=wg0jcyTO+iXgP-CpNwvJ4mTCcg3ts8dLj3R5nbbonkpyQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wg0jcyTO+iXgP-CpNwvJ4mTCcg3ts8dLj3R5nbbonkpyQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 10:24:26PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 8:05 AM Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io> wrote:
> >
> > /* Syscall number 435 */
> > clone3() uses syscall number 435 and is coordinated with pidfd_open() which
> > uses syscall number 434. I'm not aware of any other syscall targeted for
> > 5.3 that has chosen the same number.
> 
> You say that, and 434/435 would make sense, but that's not what the
> code I see in the pull request actually does.
> 
> It seems to use syscall 436.
> 
> I think it's because openat2() is looking to use 435, but I'm a bit
> nervous about the conflict between the code and your commentary..

Sorry, that was just me being dumb and forgetting that there was
close_range() which had a chance of going through Al's tree. So I left a
hole for it.

I don't terribly mind if it's 435 or 436. People pointed out you might
even renumber yourself if something makes more sense to you.

Christian