Hi Andrey,
On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 08:03:29PM +0200, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
[...]
Do you think this is ready to be merged?
Should this go through the mm or the arm tree?
I would certainly prefer to take at least the arm64 bits via the arm64 tree (i.e. patches 1, 2 and 15). We also need a Documentation patch describing the new ABI.
Will
On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 4:02 PM Will Deacon will@kernel.org wrote:
Sounds good! Should I post those patches together with the Documentation patches from Vincenzo as a separate patchset?
Vincenzo, could you share the last version of the Documentation patches?
Thanks!
Will
On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 04:16:49PM +0200, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
Yes, please (although as you say below, we need a new version of those patches from Vincenzo to address the feedback on v5). The other thing I should say is that I'd be happy to queue the other patches in the series too, but some of them are missing acks from the relevant maintainers (e.g. the mm/ and fs/ changes).
Will
On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 03:20:59PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
Ok, I've queued patches 1, 2, and 15 on a stable branch here:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/arm64/linux.git/log/?h=for-n...
which should find its way into -next shortly via our for-next/core branch. If you want to make changes, please send additional patches on top.
This is targetting 5.4, but I will drop it before the merge window if we don't have both of the following in place:
* Updated ABI documentation with Acks from Catalin and Kevin * The other patches in the series either Acked (so I can pick them up) or queued via some other tree(s) for 5.4.
Make sense?
Cheers,
Will
On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 7:13 PM Will Deacon will@kernel.org wrote:
Catalin has posted a new version today.
So we have the following patches in this series:
1. arm64: untag user pointers in access_ok and __uaccess_mask_ptr 2. arm64: Introduce prctl() options to control the tagged user addresses ABI 3. lib: untag user pointers in strn*_user 4. mm: untag user pointers passed to memory syscalls 5. mm: untag user pointers in mm/gup.c 6. mm: untag user pointers in get_vaddr_frames 7. fs/namespace: untag user pointers in copy_mount_options 8. userfaultfd: untag user pointers 9. drm/amdgpu: untag user pointers 10. drm/radeon: untag user pointers in radeon_gem_userptr_ioctl 11. IB/mlx4: untag user pointers in mlx4_get_umem_mr 12. media/v4l2-core: untag user pointers in videobuf_dma_contig_user_get 13. tee/shm: untag user pointers in tee_shm_register 14. vfio/type1: untag user pointers in vaddr_get_pfn 15. selftests, arm64: add a selftest for passing tagged pointers to kernel
1, 2 and 15 have been picked by Will.
11 has been picked up by Jason.
9, 10, 12, 13 and 14 have acks from their subsystem maintainers.
3 touches generic lib code, I'm not sure if there's a dedicated maintainer for that.
The ones that are left are the mm ones: 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8.
Andrew, could you take a look and give your Acked-by or pick them up directly?
Thanks!
On Wed, Aug 07, 2019 at 07:17:35PM +0200, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
Andrew tends to pick up lib/ patches.
The ones that are left are the mm ones: 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8.
Andrew, could you take a look and give your Acked-by or pick them up directly?
Given the subsystem Acks, it seems like 3-10 and 12 could all just go via Andrew? I hope he agrees. :)
On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 14:12:19 -0700 Kees Cook keescook@chromium.org wrote:
I'll grab everything that has not yet appeared in linux-next. If more of these patches appear in linux-next I'll drop those as well.
The review discussion against " [PATCH v19 02/15] arm64: Introduce prctl() options to control the tagged user addresses ABI" has petered out inconclusively. prctl() vs arch_prctl().
On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 03:33:00PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
I've always disliked arch_prctl() existing at all. Given that tagging is likely to be a multi-architectural feature, it seems like the controls should live in prctl() to me.
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org