[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120406142824.61d8ca3b@lwn.net>
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2012 14:28:24 -0600
From: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
To: Andrew Lutomirski <luto@....edu>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Will Drewry
<wad@...omium.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org, arnd@...db.de, davem@...emloft.net,
hpa@...or.com, mingo@...hat.com, oleg@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org,
rdunlap@...otime.net, mcgrathr@...omium.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
eparis@...hat.com, serge.hallyn@...onical.com, djm@...drot.org,
scarybeasts@...il.com, indan@....nu, pmoore@...hat.com,
eric.dumazet@...il.com, markus@...omium.org, coreyb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
keescook@...omium.org, jmorris@...ei.org, Andy Lutomirski
<luto@...capital.net>, linux-man@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v17 01/15] Add PR_{GET,SET}_NO_NEW_PRIVS to prevent
execve from granting privs
On Fri, 6 Apr 2012 13:01:17 -0700
Andrew Lutomirski <luto@....edu> wrote:
> This has been bugging me for awhile. Is there any interest in moving
> the manpages into the kernel source tree? Then there could be a
> general requirement that new APIs get documented when they're written.
Man page (or other documentation) requirements for patch acceptance are a
regular kernel summit feature. People seem to think it's a good idea, but
actual enforcement of such requirements always seems to be lacking. Lots
of people have kind of given up trying. I don't really see that adding
the man pages to the tree would help, but I could be wrong...
jon
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
