From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Reply-To: kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com Sender: Vasiliy Kulikov Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 18:42:56 +0400 From: Vasiliy Kulikov Message-ID: <20110818144256.GA20921@albatros> References: <20110813151220.GA8388@albatros> <20110813151947.GA12495@openwall.com> <20110813165502.GA9328@albatros> <20110814095010.GA14443@openwall.com> <20110814101658.GA20509@albatros> <20110814112922.GA15012@openwall.com> <20110814115549.GA3423@albatros> <20110814120448.GA15372@openwall.com> <20110815153836.GA6060@albatros> <20110818103432.GA448@openwall.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110818103432.GA448@openwall.com> Subject: Re: [kernel-hardening] 32/64 bitness restriction for pid namespace To: kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com List-ID: Solar, On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 14:34 +0400, Solar Designer wrote: > On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 07:38:36PM +0400, Vasiliy Kulikov wrote: > > Given the latest discussion on LKML we're unlikely to push the > > restriction upstream. So, I'm posting the patch here. > > I feel that it may be desirable to post the patch to LKML as well - not > as RFC, nor PATCH anymore, but merely for the sake of completeness. We > promised a better patch, so we should provide it, even if we know it's > NAK'ed. Just word your message such that no one gets the impression > we're pushing this regardless of it having been NAK'ed. Mention > explicitly that given the discussion so far you do not expect this to be > applied, but you are posting this for the sake of completeness - to have > this proposal archived in full, including the actual patch. > > Does this make sense to you? Just sent it with minor corrections to be compilable on non-x86. Thanks, -- Vasiliy