On Sat, 10 Nov 2018 02:06:29 +1100
Aleksa Sarai wrote:
> On 2018-11-09, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> > > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/ptrace.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/ptrace.h
> > > index ee696efec99f..c4dfafd43e11 100644
> > > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/ptrace.h
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/include/as
On 09/11/2018 23:23, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> I just noticed this patch -- I missed it because the cover message
> seemed far more harmless so I didn't notice this change.
>
> THIS PATCH IS FATALLY WRONG AND NEEDS TO BE IMMEDIATELY REVERTED BEFORE
> ANYONE STARTS RELYING ON IT; IT HAS THE POTENTIAL
On 11/10/2018 02:41 AM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 03:11:31PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
>> The mixing in of a sequence number into the IPC IDs is probably to
>> avoid ID reuse in userspace as much as possible. With ipcmni_extend
>> mode, the number of usable sequence numbers is
On 10/11/2018 08:16, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 11/9/18 11:02 PM, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes. We know that and it is resolved by:
>>>
>>> a) the length field in setup_header;
>>> b) the "sentinel" field which catches legacy non-compliant bootloaders.
>>
>> Doesn't help for boot loaders readin
