On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 03:28:58PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 16:23:58 +0100 Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/mte.c > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/mte.c > > > @@ -221,7 +221,7 @@ static int __access_remote_tags(struct task_struct *tsk, struct mm_struct *mm, > > > void *maddr; > > > struct page *page = NULL; > > > > > > - ret = get_user_pages_remote(tsk, mm, addr, 1, gup_flags, > > > + ret = get_user_pages_remote(mm, addr, 1, gup_flags, > > > &page, &vma, NULL); > > > if (ret <= 0) > > > break; > > > > > > Seems to be a new caller merged recently, so it got left behind during the > > > rebases... Sorry for not noticing that. > > > > The mte code is only in -next but since it's based on 5.8-rc3, we can't > > change it without breaking it. > > > > Is there a stable branch somewhere with the gup patches? If not, I can > > provisionally drop the affected MTE patches from -next and push them > > upstream closer to the -rc1 (it's the ptrace support from MTE). > > Is OK. I restaged this patch series to come after linux-next's > material and added Peter's fixup. I'll merge this series into Linus > after the ARM tree has merged so everything will land nicely. Just a heads-up that I'll drop the arm64 MTE series from -next, postponing the merging until 5.10 (there is an ongoing discussion on the prctl() aspect and I don't want to be forced to change the user ABI after upstreaming). You'll get another conflict for Peter's hunk above. Thanks. -- Catalin
