linux-kernel - Re: RESEND and REBASE arm+arm64+aarch32 vdso rewrite

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: <CALAqxLWCbw0bmYeB9Vfi5wXJcnLRnE0TYxy1h5WkHLehHv8KFg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 1 Oct 2018 11:49:27 -0700
From:   John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
To:     Mark Salyzyn <salyzyn@...roid.com>
Cc:     lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
        Dmitry Safonov <dsafonov@...tuozzo.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
        Andy Gross <andy.gross@...aro.org>,
        Kevin Brodsky <kevin.brodsky@....com>,
        Andrew Pinski <apinski@...ium.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Jeremy Linton <Jeremy.Linton@....com>,
        android-kernel@...roid.com
Subject: Re: RESEND and REBASE arm+arm64+aarch32 vdso rewrite

On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 10:58 AM, Mark Salyzyn <salyzyn@...roid.com> wrote:
> Last sent 23 Nov 2016.
>
> The following 23 patches are rebased and resent, and represent a
> rewrite of the arm and arm64 vDSO into C, adding support for arch32
> (32-bit user space hosted 64-bit kernels) and into a common library
> that other (arm, or non-arm) architectures may utilize.

So I feel like this has gone around a few times w/o much comment from
the arm/arm64 maintainers. I'm not sure if there's a reason?

I worry part of the issue is the scope of this patch set is a little
unwieldy (covering two architectures + generic code) might leave
maintainers thinking/hoping someone else should review it.

It seems the patchset is already somewhat broken up into separate
sets, so I might recommend picking just one area and focus on
upstreaming that first. Maybe the in-arch cleanups for arm and then
arm64 and then maybe do the move to lib?

thanks
-john