On Fri, 2022-09-02 at 01:27 +0300, jarkko@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 08:42:59PM +0000, Huang, Kai wrote: > > On Wed, 2022-08-31 at 11:35 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote: > > > Jarkko, Kai and Haitao, > > > > > > Can you three please start trimming your replies? You don't need to and > > > should not quote the entirety of your messages every time you reply. > > > > > > On 8/31/22 11:28, jarkko@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > > > Will it cause racing if we expose dev nodes to user space before > > > > > ksgxd is started and sensitization done? > > > > I'll to explain this. > > > > > > > > So the point is to fix the issue at hand, and fix it locally. > > > > > > > > Changing initialization order is simply out of context. It's > > > > not really an argument for or against changing it > > > > > > > > We are fixing sanitization here, and only that with zero > > > > side-effects to any other semantics. > > > > > > > > It's dictated by the development process [*] but more > > > > importantly it's also just plain common sense. > > > > > > Kai, I think your suggestion is reasonable. You make a good point about > > > not needing ksgxd for vepc. > > > > > > *But*, I think it's a bit too much for a bugfix that's headed to > > > -stable. I'm concerned that it will have unintended side effects, > > > *especially* when there's a working, tested alternative. > > > > Agreed. Thanks Dave/Jarkko. > > Please do a patch. It's a very reasonable suggestion when > considered out of context of this bug. > > If you go really rigid with this, the compilation process > should not compile in sanitization process in the case when > only vepc is enabled. It's useless functionality in that > case. > > BR, Jarkko Yeah I am planning to work out one to see how it goes. -- Thanks, -Kai
