On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 4:45 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 07/28/2014 04:42 PM, Kees Cook wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 4:34 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On 07/28/2014 04:29 PM, Kees Cook wrote: >>>> On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 10:59 AM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> On 07/23/2014 12:20 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> It looks like patches 1-4 have landed here: >>>>>> >>>>>> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/kees/linux.git/log/?h=seccomp/fastpath >>>>>> >>>>>> hpa, what's the route forward for the x86 part? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I guess I should discuss this with Kees to figure out what makes most >>>>> sense. In the meantime, could you address Oleg's question? >>>> >>>> Since the x86 parts depend on the seccomp parts, I'm happy if you >>>> carry them instead of having them land from my tree. Otherwise I'm >>>> open to how to coordinate timing. >>>> >>> >>> You mean for me to carry the seccomp part as well? >> >> If that makes sense as far as the coordination, that's fine with me. >> Otherwise I'm not sure how x86 can build without having the seccomp >> changes in your tree. >> > > Exactly. What I guess I'll do is set up a separate tip branch for this, > pull your branch into it, and then put the x86 patches on top. Does > that make sense for everyone? Sounds good to me. Once Oleg and Andy are happy, we'll be set. -Kees -- Kees Cook Chrome OS Security
