[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGXu5jKRn2EsPwNMtVTPyKyDnt+vqHZF=jdr+DajN_iN1DWjSw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2018 12:35:06 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
Christopher Li <sparse@...isli.org>,
Sparse Mailing-list <linux-sparse@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Daniel Santos <daniel.santos@...ox.com>,
Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>,
Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...el.com>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] compiler.h: give up __compiletime_assert_fallback()
On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 12:29 PM, Nick Desaulniers
<ndesaulniers@...gle.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 12:03 PM Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 11:45:19AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
>> > On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 11:42 AM, Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> > > I'm not digging up a compiler.h patch from a web site and adding it to
>> > > the tree this late in the release cycle. Especially given that it
>> > > hasn't had any testing anywhere...
>> >
>> > Good point about it not living in -next.
>> >
>> > Who should be carrying these sorts of patches? In the past it's been
>> > Andrew or Masahiro, yes? For linux-next, maybe it can go via -mm?
>>
>> Either is fine with me, as long as it isn't one of my trees :)
>>
>> thanks,
>>
>> greg k-h
>
> Besides, I think we want the v2: https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/8/25/103
Yeah, that's what I'd linked to in the patchwork URL. Andrew, can you take this?
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Pixel Security
Powered by blists - more mailing lists