linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/7] use struct pt_regs based syscall calling for x86-64

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <20180330110354.cnrtmjkk77hhbekt@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 30 Mar 2018 13:03:54 +0200
From:   Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:     Dominik Brodowski <linux@...inikbrodowski.net>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, viro@...IV.linux.org.uk,
        torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, arnd@...db.de,
        linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
        Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] use struct pt_regs based syscall calling for x86-64


* Dominik Brodowski <linux@...inikbrodowski.net> wrote:

> > > The whole series is available at
> > > 
> > >         https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/brodo/linux.git syscalls-WIP
> > 
> > BTW., I'd like all these bits to go through the x86 tree.
> > 
> > What is the expected merge route of the generic preparatory bits?
> 
> My current plan is to push the 109 patch bomb to remove in-kernel calls to syscalls
> directly to Linus once v4.16 is released.

Are there any (textual and semantic) conflicts with the latest -next?

Also, to what extent were these 109 patches tested in -next?

> For this series of seven patches, I am content with them going upstream through 
> the x86 tree (once that contains a backmerge of Linus' tree or the syscalls 
> tree, obviously). IMO, these seven patches should be kept together, and not 
> routed upstream through different channels.

Of course they should stay together - the generic code impact is minimal, these 
are 95% x86.

Thanks,

	Ingo