On Fri, Aug 09, 2019 at 10:00:17AM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 04:09:04PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 03:33:00PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 14:12:19 -0700 Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > 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. :) > > > > > > 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(). > > > > 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. > > It took a bit of grep'ing to figure out what Dave H meant by > arch_prctl(). It's an x86-specific syscall which we do not have on arm64 > (and possibly any other architecture). Actually, we don't have any arm64 > specific syscalls, only the generic unistd.h, hence the confusion. For > other arm64-specific prctls like SVE we used the generic sys_prctl() and > I can see x86 not being consistent either (PR_MPX_ENABLE_MANAGEMENT). > > In general I disagree with adding any arm64-specific syscalls but in > this instance it can't even be justified. I'd rather see some clean-up > similar to arch_ptrace/ptrace_request than introducing new syscall > numbers (but as I suggested in my reply to Dave, that's for another > patch series). I had a go at refactoring this a while ago, but it fell by the wayside. I can try to resurrect it if it's still considered worthwhile. Cheers ---Dave
