linux-kernel - Re: Unreviewed arm64 ABI change in linux-next via driver-core tree

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 26 Sep 2017 14:57:01 +0200
From:   Felix Schnizlein <fschnizlein@...e.com>
To:     Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Cc:     gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, trenn@...e.com,
        catalin.marinas@....com, sfr@...b.auug.org.au,
        mark.rutland@....com, linux@...linux.org.uk,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: Unreviewed arm64 ABI change in linux-next via driver-core tree

Hi Will, Hi Greg,

It seems this is all my fault. It looks like forgot to check that the
outgoing mailserver send the patches correctly to the mailinglists which
doesn't happen.

So to make this horrible situation short maybe drop the patches and I
will resend them and make sure this time everything works as expected

Sorry Greg for all the stress :(

Felix
On 26.09.17, Will Deacon wrote:
> Hi Greg,
> 
> We stumbled over a change in linux-next that has ABI implications for arm64
> and, as far as we can tell, has not been reviewed:
> 
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/commit/arch/arm64/kernel?id=fb7ff3f8721b87bf078868c9a252fa0cf71a47c2
> 
> ("fb7ff3f8721b cpuinfo: implement sysfs nodes for arm64")
> 
> It looks like this was requested by you on LKML here:
> 
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/8/2/663
> 
> but these sorts of changes really need to go on the linux-arm-kernel mailing
> list with the maintainers on cc so that the patches can be properly reviewed
> and eventually acked if appropriate. In this case, I can't find any trace of
> the patch on any of the mailing lists to which I'm subscribed.
> 
> Please can you drop this from your tree until we've had a chance to review
> it properly? If Felix can repost it as above, then we can get the discussion
> started because, aside from this email, we have concerns about exactly what
> is being exposed to userspace here.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Will
> 

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)