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  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:   Fri, 3 Nov 2017 13:27:49 -0400
From:   Chris Metcalf <>
To:     Russell King - ARM Linux <>
Cc:     Steven Rostedt <>,
        Ingo Molnar <>,
        Peter Zijlstra <>,
        Andrew Morton <>,
        Rik van Riel <>, Tejun Heo <>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <>,
        Thomas Gleixner <>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <>,
        Christoph Lameter <>,
        Viresh Kumar <>,
        Catalin Marinas <>,
        Will Deacon <>,
        Andy Lutomirski <>,
        Mark Rutland <>,,,
        Francis Giraldeau <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v16 10/13] arch/arm: enable task isolation functionality

On 11/3/2017 1:23 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 03, 2017 at 01:04:49PM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
>> From: Francis Giraldeau <>
>> This patch is a port of the task isolation functionality to the arm 32-bit
>> architecture. The task isolation needs an additional thread flag that
>> requires to change the entry assembly code to accept a bitfield larger than
>> one byte.  The constants _TIF_SYSCALL_WORK and _TIF_WORK_MASK are now
>> defined in the literal pool. The rest of the patch is straightforward and
>> reflects what is done on other architectures.
>> To avoid problems with the tst instruction in the v7m build, we renumber
>> TIF_SECCOMP to bit 8 and let TIF_TASK_ISOLATION use bit 7.
> After a bit of digging (which could've been saved if our patch format
> contained information about what kernel version this patch was
> generated against) it turns out that this patch will not apply since
> commit 73ac5d6a2b6ac ("arm/syscalls: Check address limit on user-mode
> return") has been applied, which means the TIF numbers have changed
> as well as the assembly code that your patch touches.
> My guess is that this patch was generated from a 4.13 kernel, so
> misses the 4.14-rc1 changes.  Since we're potentially about to start
> the merge window for 4.15 this weekend, the timing of this doesn't
> work well either.

What patch failure did you see?  The patch is based against 4.14-rc4, so 
it's a few weeks out of date, it does include the commit you reference.

> Once 4.15-rc1 has been published, please rebase against that version
> and resend.

Sure.  I was hoping to eke out a little bit of attention from kernel 
before the merge window actually opens :)

Chris Metcalf, Mellanox Technologies

Powered by blists - more mailing lists