On Wed, Aug 07, 2019 at 07:17:35PM +0200, Andrey Konovalov wrote: > On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 7:13 PM Will Deacon <will@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 03:20:59PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 04:16:49PM +0200, Andrey Konovalov wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 4:02 PM Will Deacon <will@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 08:03:29PM +0200, Andrey Konovalov wrote: > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > Sounds good! Should I post those patches together with the > > > > Documentation patches from Vincenzo as a separate patchset? > > > > > > 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). > > > > 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-next/tbi > > > > 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 > > Catalin has posted a new version today. > > > * The other patches in the series either Acked (so I can pick them up) > > or queued via some other tree(s) for 5.4. > > 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. 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. :) -- Kees Cook _______________________________________________ amd-gfx mailing list amd-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
