Re: + exec-allow-core_pipe-recursion-check-to-look-for-a-value-of-1-rather -than-0.patch added to -mm tree

[nhorman]

On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 16:34:08 -0500, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 16:22:39 -0500
> Neil Horman <nhorman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 06:58:52PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > On 01/27, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Currently only d_coredump() needs this new feature, but please note
> > > > that ____call_usermodehelper() was already "uglified" for the coredumping
> > > > over the pipe.
> > > >> > > > If we add sub_info->finit(), then probably we should move the code
> > > > under "if (sub_info->stdin)" from ____call_usermodehelper() to
> > > > core_pipe_setup() ?
> > > 
> > > And, perhaps, we should not change call_usermodehelper() and all its
> > > callers? If the caller needs ->finit() it can customize subprocess_info
> > > like call_usermodehelper_pipe() already does?
> > > 
> > > To clarify, I don't have a "strong" opinion, I am just asking.
> > > 
> > I'm not opposed to that, Since Andew has already taken these patches, I'll
> > tinkier to see how such an implementation change looks, and post some follow on
> > patches if it seems good.  I'll clean up the comments while I'm at it.
> > 
> 
> The patch conflicts a bit with Andi's
> sysctl-add-call_usermodehelper_cleanup.patch so I dropped v1 of
> exec-allow-core_pipe-recursion-check-to-look-for-a-value-of-1-rather-than-0.patch
> 
That's fine.  I'll repost with the cleanups you & oleg noted in a few days

Regards
Neil

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/