From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B65D240DFA3 for ; Mon, 6 Apr 2026 13:32:24 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.133.124 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1775482346; cv=none; b=NfYz/sPLsD7ABdkhVMxQWzC1XLsWCwF+7jInTTuGA2cXxnoxnLIW2wfFv8nuLSbEoILaLAVN0XOzW61xfXUjXavYYGympq6xKj5e5PaBeDNKaert/nku0f1bkpDgJMlMpre4V9RBMlzvtYwo+Y88wylbnisKTD5CNY70OQ3wmP4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1775482346; c=relaxed/simple; bh=nEGEhv7+wnrY+VwBbxaJJpu0tm0sndWSC0QdwL8vhBA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=ohbfMerk23ABA56ADTjqdWKQNChUqvbQOY51noptWv9M855hAhWt/eQQGXGBfL8K4Ek6fKx9plrniSdj7k2nNljgr/hguohC+Q7OSECKuq9E3/8inWXwDHrlVpLX6FAurT5bMWPx84uGBuEDbq7x60ytnK3PmC1ZWFVHNHF7hOw= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b=HJQ4MjhC; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.133.124 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="HJQ4MjhC" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1775482343; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=nEGEhv7+wnrY+VwBbxaJJpu0tm0sndWSC0QdwL8vhBA=; b=HJQ4MjhC7hjICUrwjzOOGVzTM6vdkaRuju74ihQbtKLkzUCpHFZs3SR0be1Y5ZCx68MYzD 6tD4Ye4fIK1ZBpL93/8t9elrJ6/UWAny3KiLPHAjcd6+MULJ1HusZ07bF93rKv2nTJvnBS hKzEeSadb3AAQhYY5nnBXAhrYNAF+ZM= Received: from mx-prod-mc-08.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (ec2-35-165-154-97.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com [35.165.154.97]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-194-7kzIwLppMRi8ybz9uyaYJQ-1; Mon, 06 Apr 2026 09:32:17 -0400 X-MC-Unique: 7kzIwLppMRi8ybz9uyaYJQ-1 X-Mimecast-MFC-AGG-ID: 7kzIwLppMRi8ybz9uyaYJQ_1775482330 Received: from mx-prod-int-06.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (mx-prod-int-06.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com [10.30.177.93]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mx-prod-mc-08.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A5A261800365; Mon, 6 Apr 2026 13:32:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from fedora (unknown [10.44.32.11]) by mx-prod-int-06.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with SMTP id E10CD1800762; Mon, 6 Apr 2026 13:32:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: by fedora (nbSMTP-1.00) for uid 1000 oleg@redhat.com; Mon, 6 Apr 2026 15:32:09 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2026 15:32:05 +0200 From: Oleg Nesterov To: Kees Cook Cc: Andrew Morton , Kusaram Devineni , Jens Axboe , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, io-uring@vger.kernel.org, Christian Brauner Subject: Re: [PATCH] signalfd: don't dequeue the forced fatal signals Message-ID: References: <202604052136.440E9CFA44@keescook> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <202604052136.440E9CFA44@keescook> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.4.1 on 10.30.177.93 On 04/05, Kees Cook wrote: > > Reviewed-by: Kees Cook Thanks! > Who should take this? I'm happy to add it to my seccomp tree if akpm (or > maybe Christian wants it)? I am obviously fine either way, but if nobody objects I'd prefer your tree. To remind, we have another (slightly related) problem, [RFC PATCH] ptrace: don't report syscall-exit if the tracee was killed by seccomp https://lore.kernel.org/all/adKGb5vkyggMK-_l@redhat.com/ I still hope to send V2 "soon" ;) This is certainly the seccomp material, so I think it would be better to route both changes via the same tree. But again, I am fine either way, this is minor. But. I forgot to add the "TODO" note into the changelog. And mk_sigmask() is not a good name... I'll send V2 with these (cosmetic) changes in a minute, I'll preserve your ACK. Oleg.