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

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

Message-ID: <20180330114808.GA10671@light.dominikbrodowski.net>
Date:   Fri, 30 Mar 2018 13:48:08 +0200
From:   Dominik Brodowski <linux@...inikbrodowski.net>
To:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
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

On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 01:03:54PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * 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?

These 109 patches are equivalent to the syscalls tree in linux-next. Most of
these patches habe been in there for quite a while (the last major batch went
in on March 22; other patches are in there since March 14th).

Conflicts existend with asm-generic and metag (which contain remvoal of some
architectures; I have solved that issue by not caring about those archs any
more); trivial conflicts exist since very few days with the vfs and sparc
trees.

Thanks,
	Dominik