On 15/04/17, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 11:42:50AM -0400, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> On 15/04/17, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 03:35:54AM -0400, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> > > Added the macro CLONE_NEW_MASK_ALL to refer to all CLONE_NEW* flags.
> >
> > A wee bit about why might be nice..
>
> It makes the following patch much cleaner to read:
> [PATCH V6 08/10] fork: audit on creation of new namespace(s)
>
https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/4/17/50
>
> I was hoping it might also make a lot of other code cleaner, but most of
> the other places where multiple CLONE_NEW* flags are used, not all six
> are used together, but only 5 are used. Ok, so it is helpful in 1 of 3:
>
> It would actually be useful in check_unshare_flags():
>
https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/v3.17/kernel/fork.c#L1791
>
> but not in copy_namespaces() or unshare_nsproxy_namespaces():
>
https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/v3.17/kernel/nsproxy.c#L130
>
https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/v3.17/kernel/nsproxy.c#L183
Right, so no objections from me on this, its just that I only saw this
one patch in isolation without context and the changelog failed on
rationale.
I realize you only saw a small window of this patchset, but this feels
like bike shedding about the main objective of the set...
I'll add a bit more justification and context if/when I respin for the
rest of the set.
Does it perchance make sense to fold this patch into the next patch
that
actually makes use of it?
It would if it were the only potential user. I don't want to bury a
surprise in something bigger. Is there a preferred way to use such a
macro to make the other three examples cleaner, or is that just useless
churn and obfuscation? Would there be a concise way to express all
CLONE_NEW* flags *except* user?
- RGB
--
Richard Guy Briggs <rbriggs(a)redhat.com>
Senior Software Engineer, Kernel Security, AMER ENG Base Operating Systems, Red Hat
Remote, Ottawa, Canada
Voice: +1.647.777.2635, Internal: (81) 32635, Alt: +1.613.693.0684x3545