Re: [PATCH 0/3] add %pX specifier

[Tobin Harding]

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.