From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Phillips Subject: Re: [PATCH] Initial support for struct vfs_cred [0/1] Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2002 17:15:30 +0200 Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: References: <15729.17279.474307.914587@charged.uio.no> <1030835635.1422.39.camel@ldb> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Cc: Linus Torvalds , Linux FSdevel , Linux Kernel Return-path: To: Luca Barbieri , trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no In-Reply-To: <1030835635.1422.39.camel@ldb> List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Sunday 01 September 2002 01:13, Luca Barbieri wrote: > On Sun, 2002-09-01 at 00:30, Trond Myklebust wrote: > > >>>>> " " == Luca Barbieri writes: > > > > > Then the rest of the code doesn't need to know at all that > > > credentials are shared and is simpler and faster. We have > > > however a larger penalty on credential change but, as you say, > > > that's extremely rare (well, perhaps not necessarily extremely, > > > but still rare). > > > > What if I, in a fit of madness/perversion, decide to use CLONE_CRED > > between 2 kernel threads (i.e. no 'kernel entry')? > You don't or you manually patch the task_struct of the other threads. > This isn't a serious concern. It is a serious concern. Inventing new, subtle behavior differences between user and kernel threads is, in a word, gross. It's certain to bite people in the future. -- Daniel