Received: by 2002:a05:6a10:5bc5:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id os5csp3209872pxb; Fri, 5 Nov 2021 11:35:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyJwt+p0QEXdNQBm3UF23xVmX7gFZOVosTkm9k2HvtMNok3q9KJGsk3mpz4RQEFuVXcF9if X-Received: by 2002:a05:6638:12cb:: with SMTP id v11mr10681516jas.13.1636137329206; Fri, 05 Nov 2021 11:35:29 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1636137329; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=gROd192SCu2M7QhIcayU1mKcProCNQLsTsq7Svn+q+/jdLdCIhOd9tuwWz7KAZ1Bmm gzwNk2uWJS95tgrVigDOXxwA44yHa1Ftsm2NleQ6jcAbNBpo+f+FEy//jmfj9BpAlE+C mKl9yoU+uTO27/5mkawaV/eXVVPRi1jNzaWwuMeJGsZW8xvrafZDAH7JwnFEFhqH18v8 l/o8AWDj/iUFHSRBj08wVrO5/3J/kgDxQFbAfFCqZ79YwNe0oWG/WqS0uRx0idU51Tda VtpYGjn6plXw5fvD8nNVxJEtHV8eoAwrw9dnxDOz5Q6Q1U+Z/6yNsouD8R1vZoxw85rs 4INA== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:subject:mime-version:user-agent:message-id :in-reply-to:date:references:cc:to:from; bh=NKSEXBjM6PookCHRyZ4RtmvfOusL4aYRCPhj+xCIftM=; b=m7rwgzHEQGjL3ivrtAt0LK64N5gQf9Ark39+gpgowbuKaIZfmOucfFBfQ5ZSHyqvh9 RFHiVB6ZsJ65lak7FkzggmLsXV291VKctxAhyvtJV2ndcwjxUw+2ftYW/ZlrkoDO/rDD bzw5mVHJrEfhmfb7JNb+DvSHHjvuKpUUK0qZiqU31J8Lfyx2sZYHxupbGga62qCVnDIX ZmZIvd/xHvcC/e/gco1g+rP5citj8VToMkG42OuL0HHo/DpxapdFJa4asLv/FHcgnLVV BSLpDBu4h8w5/jfilUXCgZcY/CTsK+MDyk4PGtq6fJmAW+HrOnHkXReOms1brjatTsdf 8ZHQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=xmission.com Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [23.128.96.18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id 68si14869568iov.91.2021.11.05.11.35.15; Fri, 05 Nov 2021 11:35:29 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=xmission.com Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S233813AbhKEQlI (ORCPT + 99 others); Fri, 5 Nov 2021 12:41:08 -0400 Received: from out01.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.231]:58662 "EHLO out01.mta.xmission.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S233366AbhKEQlH (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Nov 2021 12:41:07 -0400 Received: from in01.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.51]:42698) by out01.mta.xmission.com with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.93) (envelope-from ) id 1mj2ET-0040wi-Cl; Fri, 05 Nov 2021 10:38:25 -0600 Received: from ip68-227-160-95.om.om.cox.net ([68.227.160.95]:47856 helo=email.xmission.com) by in01.mta.xmission.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.93) (envelope-from ) id 1mj2ER-005uAo-CI; Fri, 05 Nov 2021 10:38:24 -0600 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List , Oleg Nesterov , Al Viro , Kees Cook , Linux API References: <878ry512iv.fsf@disp2133> Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2021 11:37:55 -0500 In-Reply-To: (Linus Torvalds's message of "Wed, 3 Nov 2021 12:34:44 -0700") Message-ID: <871r3uy2vw.fsf@disp2133> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-XM-SPF: eid=1mj2ER-005uAo-CI;;;mid=<871r3uy2vw.fsf@disp2133>;;;hst=in01.mta.xmission.com;;;ip=68.227.160.95;;;frm=ebiederm@xmission.com;;;spf=neutral X-XM-AID: U2FsdGVkX19VqaJj8/S8xVQx26R9tPAt2wUIi1RqVro= X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 68.227.160.95 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: ebiederm@xmission.com X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on sa04.xmission.com X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.1 required=8.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_50, DCC_CHECK_NEGATIVE,T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG,XMSubMetaSxObfu_03, XMSubMetaSx_00 autolearn=disabled version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Report: * -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP * 0.8 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 40 to 60% * [score: 0.5000] * 0.0 T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG BODY: No description available. * -0.0 DCC_CHECK_NEGATIVE Not listed in DCC * [sa04 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1] * 1.2 XMSubMetaSxObfu_03 Obfuscated Sexy Noun-People * 1.0 XMSubMetaSx_00 1+ Sexy Words X-Spam-DCC: XMission; sa04 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1 X-Spam-Combo: **;Linus Torvalds X-Spam-Relay-Country: X-Spam-Timing: total 1359 ms - load_scoreonly_sql: 0.05 (0.0%), signal_user_changed: 13 (0.9%), b_tie_ro: 11 (0.8%), parse: 1.32 (0.1%), extract_message_metadata: 21 (1.5%), get_uri_detail_list: 1.69 (0.1%), tests_pri_-1000: 21 (1.6%), tests_pri_-950: 1.65 (0.1%), tests_pri_-900: 1.28 (0.1%), tests_pri_-90: 98 (7.2%), check_bayes: 82 (6.1%), b_tokenize: 7 (0.5%), b_tok_get_all: 6 (0.5%), b_comp_prob: 2.3 (0.2%), b_tok_touch_all: 63 (4.7%), b_finish: 1.00 (0.1%), tests_pri_0: 1190 (87.5%), check_dkim_signature: 0.62 (0.0%), check_dkim_adsp: 2.9 (0.2%), poll_dns_idle: 0.82 (0.1%), tests_pri_10: 2.2 (0.2%), tests_pri_500: 7 (0.5%), rewrite_mail: 0.00 (0.0%) Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] per signal_struct coredumps X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Sat, 08 Feb 2020 21:53:50 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on in01.mta.xmission.com) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Linus Torvalds writes: > On Wed, Nov 3, 2021 at 12:07 PM Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> >> Please pull the per_signal_struct_coredumps-for-v5.16 branch > > I've pulled it, but I'm not convinced about that odd extra merge > commit that contains the commentary. > > That's what signed tags are for, and they have that explanation that > then makes it into the merge - plus they have the crypto signature to > show it all comes from you. > > So that would have been the much better model than a fake extra merge. > > But at least that extra merge did have explanations, so at least it > doesn't trigger me on _that_ level. I have been creating those when I place a patchset with an interesting cover letter in a branch. Now with the entire branch being just that patchset, it doesn't make a lot of sense (except as somewhere to store that cover letter so I don't loose it). At other times when there are multiple sets of changes on a single branch I think it makes more sense. Am I missing a better way to preserve the cover letter for the changes when multiple sets of changes land in a single branch? Eric