Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230522132439.634031-1-aleksandr.mikhalitsyn@canonical.com>
 <20230522132439.634031-2-aleksandr.mikhalitsyn@canonical.com>
 <20230522133409.5c6e839a@kernel.org> <20230523-flechten-ortsschild-e5724ecc4ed0@brauner>
 <CAMw=ZnS8GBTDV0rw+Dh6hPv3uLXJVwapRFQHLMYEYGZHNoLNOw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20230523140844.5895d645@kernel.org> <CAEivzxeS2J5i0RJDvFHq-U_RAU5bbKVF5ZbphYDGoPcMZTsE3Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMw=ZnRmNaoRb2uceatrV8EAufJSKZzD2AsfT5PJE8NBBOrHCg@mail.gmail.com> <20230524081933.44dc8bea@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20230524081933.44dc8bea@kernel.org>
From:   Aleksandr Mikhalitsyn <aleksandr.mikhalitsyn@canonical.com>
Date:   Wed, 24 May 2023 17:45:25 +0200
Message-ID: <CAEivzxcTEghPqk=9hQMReSGzE=ruWnJyiuPhW5rGd7eUOEg12A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v6 1/3] scm: add SO_PASSPIDFD and SCM_PIDFD
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Cc:     Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org>,
        Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>, davem@davemloft.net,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
        Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>,
        David Ahern <dsahern@kernel.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@amazon.com>,
        Lennart Poettering <mzxreary@0pointer.de>,
        linux-arch@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 5:19=E2=80=AFPM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org> wr=
ote:
>
> On Wed, 24 May 2023 11:47:50 +0100 Luca Boccassi wrote:
> > > I will send SO_PEERPIDFD as an independent patch too, because it
> > > doesn't require this change with CONFIG_UNIX
> > > and we can avoid waiting until CONFIG_UNIX change will be merged.
> > > I've a feeling that the discussion around making CONFIG_UNIX  to be a
> > > boolean won't be easy and fast ;-)
> >
> > Thank you, that sounds great to me, I can start using SO_PEERPIDFD
> > independently of SCM_PIDFD, there's no hard dependency between the
> > two.
>
> How about you put the UNIX -> bool patch at the end of the series,
> (making it a 4 patch series) and if there's a discussion about it
> I'll just skip it and apply the first 3 patches?

Sure, I will do that!

>
> In the (IMHO more likely) case that there isn't a discussion it saves
> me from remembering to chase you to send that patch ;)

Thanks a lot, Jakub!

Kind regards,
Alex