From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: mm-commits@vger.kernel.org, mcgrof@kernel.org,
keescook@chromium.org, chenhuacai@loongson.cn
Subject: Re: + kthread-unify-kernel_thread-and-user_mode_thread.patch added to mm-nonmm-unstable branch
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2023 09:21:17 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87wn096t8y.ffs@tglx> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87352x22jc.fsf@email.froward.int.ebiederm.org>
On Sun, Jun 11 2023 at 14:59, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> writes:
>
>> The patch titled
>> Subject: kthread: Unify kernel_thread() and user_mode_thread()
>> has been added to the -mm mm-nonmm-unstable branch. Its filename is
>> kthread-unify-kernel_thread-and-user_mode_thread.patch
>
> Andrew.
>
> My fuzzy memory thinks Linus asked for the current split.
Correct. It was in a discussion about a nasty security hole due to a
race in the original code which did _not_ have the distinction.
> Plus this change just obfuscates the code making the most important
> detail the argument to a boolean parameter. Meaning you have to have
> an interface that has only 3 callers memorized to even begin to make
> sense of it.
Right. Losing the clear distinction of the function names is a horrible
idea.
If at all this should at least keep user_mode_thread() and
kernel_thread() as inline wrappers around a common function.
Just blindly unifying code is a patently bad idea.
Thanks,
tglx
prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-06-12 7:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-06-05 23:10 + kthread-unify-kernel_thread-and-user_mode_thread.patch added to mm-nonmm-unstable branch Andrew Morton
2023-06-11 19:59 ` Eric W. Biederman
2023-06-12 7:21 ` Thomas Gleixner [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87wn096t8y.ffs@tglx \
--to=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=chenhuacai@loongson.cn \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mcgrof@kernel.org \
--cc=mm-commits@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.