[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171020191606.GA21743@voyager>
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2017 12:16:06 -0700
From: Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri-calderon@...ux.intel.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...lanox.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
Huang Rui <ray.huang@....com>, Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Chen Yucong <slaoub@...il.com>,
"Ravi V. Shankar" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
x86@...nel.org, ricardo.neri@...el.com,
Adam Buchbinder <adam.buchbinder@...il.com>,
Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>,
Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@...il.com>,
Qiaowei Ren <qiaowei.ren@...el.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@...gle.com>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 19/29] x86/insn-eval: Add support to resolve 32-bit
address encodings
On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 08:38:25PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 11:24:48AM -0700, Ricardo Neri wrote:
> > I will create these helper functions. This change and your suggestion in
> > patch 18 will impact other patches in the series (e.g., the function
> > get_addr_ref_16() in patch 22). Would it make sense to submit a v10 and
> > resume review there?
> >
> > Also, do you think I am still on-time to make it to v4.15?
>
> Well, I've been thinking about it: handling huge patchsets is always
> very cumbersome, time-consuming and error prone. So perhaps it would be
> easier - maybe - I'm not saying it will definitely but only maybe - if
> you would split the patchset into, say, two, pieces, or halves, if you
> will.
>
> And I think the first piece is more or less reviewed and if tip guys
> don't find any booboos, it could go in now. Which would free you to deal
> with the other half later.
Since MPX uses this emulation code and only cares about 64-bit addresses
(given the initial implemention from which I based my code), patches 1-18
need to be pulled together.
Perhaps I can send the v10 of patches 1-18 (or a v1 since is a new
series?). Patches 19-29 would constitute a series of improved emulation
plus UMIP code.
Does it make sense?
Thanks and BR,
Ricardo
> --
Powered by blists - more mailing lists