[PATCH 00/14] Make the user mode driver code a better citizen
Alexei Starovoitov
alexei.starovoitov at gmail.com
Fri Jun 26 18:22:39 UTC 2020
On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 12:17:40PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> > I'm swamped with other stuff today and will test the set Sunday/Monday
> > with other patches that I'm working on.
> > I'm not sure why you want to rename the interface. Seems
> > pointless. But fine.
>
> For maintainability I think the code very much benefits from a clear
> separation between the user mode driver code from the user mode helper
> code.
you mean different name gives that separation? makes sense.
> > As far as routing trees. Do you mind I'll take it via bpf-next ?
> > As I said countless times we're working on bpf_iter using fork_blob.
> > If you take this set via your tree we would need to wait the whole kernel release.
> > Which is 8+ weeks before we can use the interface (due to renaming and overall changes).
> > I'd really like to avoid this huge delay.
> > Unless you can land it into 5.8-rc2 or rc3.
>
> I also want to build upon this code.
>
> How about when the review is done I post a frozen branch based on
> v5.8-rc1 that you can merge into the bpf-next tree, and I can merge into
> my branch. That way we both can build upon this code. That is the way
> conflicts like this are usually handled.
sure. that works too.
> Further I will leave any further enhancements to the user mode driver
> infrastructure that people have suggested to you.
ok
More information about the Linux-security-module-archive
mailing list