On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 12:55:54PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > > --- a/fs/proc/array.c > > +++ b/fs/proc/array.c > > @@ -395,7 +395,8 @@ static int do_task_stat(struct seq_file *m, struct pid_namespace *ns, > > > > state = *get_task_state(task); > > vsize = eip = esp = 0; > > - permitted = ptrace_may_access(task, PTRACE_MODE_READ | PTRACE_MODE_NOAUDIT); > > + permitted = ptrace_may_access(task, > > + PTRACE_MODE_READ | PTRACE_MODE_NOAUDIT | PTRACE_MODE_FSCREDS); > > There's lots of ugliness in the patch to do with fitting code into 80 cols. > Can we do > > #define PTRACE_foo (PTRACE_MODE_READ|PTRACE_MODE_FSCREDS) > > to avoid all that? Or even simply bypass the 80-cols rule. Making code ugly or less easy to read for sake of an arbitrary rule is often not fun, and that's even more so when it comes to security fixes that people are expected to easily understand next time they put their fingers there. Willy -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>