Hi Andrew, (I don't know who to pick on sorry) On 05/12/2011 04:50 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote: > It turns out that strict user copy checks (also known as > CONFIG_DEBUG_STRICT_USER_COPY_CHECKS) isn't actually implemented > on x86_64 and thus we aren't catching potential security holes > at compile time. > > This series adds support for strict user copy checks on x86_64 > and silences all the benign warnings in the x86_64 allyesconfig. > > The final patch consolidates the config option as its duplicated > across mutliple arches. I don't know what tree this series should > go through so I tried to send the individual driver patches to the > respective maintainers. > > Stephen Boyd (9): > iwlegacy: Silence DEBUG_STRICT_USER_COPY_CHECKS=y warning > iwlwifi: Silence DEBUG_STRICT_USER_COPY_CHECKS=y warning > [SCSI] lpfc: Silence DEBUG_STRICT_USER_COPY_CHECKS=y warning > debugfs: Silence DEBUG_STRICT_USER_COPY_CHECKS=y warning > kprobes: Silence DEBUG_STRICT_USER_COPY_CHECKS=y warning > Bluetooth: Silence DEBUG_STRICT_USER_COPY_CHECKS=y warning > ASoC: Silence DEBUG_STRICT_USER_COPY_CHECKS=y warning > x86: Implement strict user copy checks for x86_64 > Consolidate CONFIG_DEBUG_STRICT_USER_COPY_CHECKS It looks like 1, 2, 4, 6, and 7 got picked up. Should I resend the left over patches with appropriate acked-bys and tags? Would it be appropriate to push this through your tree? -- Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
