On Sat, Oct 14, 2017, at 04:54, Roberts, William C wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: linus971@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:linus971@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Linus > > Torvalds > > Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2017 4:17 PM > > To: Tobin C. Harding <me@xxxxxxxx> > > Cc: kernel-hardening@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; KVM list <kvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; > > Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Kees Cook > > <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx>; Tycho > > Andersen <tycho@xxxxxxxxxx>; Roberts, William C > > <william.c.roberts@xxxxxxxxx>; Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx>; Jordan Glover > > <Golden_Miller83@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; > > Petr Mladek <pmladek@xxxxxxxx>; Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Ian > > Campbell <ijc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Sergey Senozhatsky > > <sergey.senozhatsky@xxxxxxxxx>; Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx>; > > Will Deacon <will.deacon@xxxxxxx>; Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx>; > > Chris Fries <cfries@xxxxxxxxxx>; Dave Weinstein <olorin@xxxxxxxxxx>; Daniel > > Micay <danielmicay@xxxxxxxxx>; Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@xxxxxxxxx> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] add %pX specifier > > > > On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 4:09 PM, Tobin C. Harding <me@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > This patch is a softer version of Linus' suggestion because it does > > > not change the behaviour of the %p specifier. I don't see the benefit > > > in making such a breaking change without addressing the issue of %x (and I > > don't the balls to right now). > > > > The thing is, this continues to have the exact same issue that %pK has > > - because it is opt-in, effectively nobody will actually use it. > > > > That's why I would suggest that if we do this way, we really change %p and %pa > > to use the hashed value, to convert *everybody*. And then people who have a > > good reason to actually expose the pointer have to do the extra work and opt > > out. > > Yes we cannot make this opt in or there is really no point in doing it. > %pK and mistakes > got us here to this point. I see there is multiple threads, this getting > really fun to follow. The threading split is my fault. I have never worked on a patch series with this many comments. How could I have gone about things differently to prevent the thread separation? Should I have posted the second patch set as a reply to the first (I did not because it was not a version 2). Further splitting occurred because I botched the `git send-email` and sent only a cover-letter, this got some replies that lead to another single patch (again it was quite different and seemed not to be a version 2)? So we are left with three threads all discussing the same changes. Is there anything one can do to rectify this position now? thanks, Tobin.
