linux-kernel - Re: clean up and streamline probe_kernel

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: <20200527173638.156eccece443d8e98c646310@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Wed, 27 May 2020 17:36:38 -0700
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc:     x86@...nel.org, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org, linux-um@...ts.infradead.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: clean up and streamline probe_kernel_* and friends v4

On Tue, 26 May 2020 08:13:09 +0200 Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de> wrote:

> On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 03:19:12PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > hm.  Applying linux-next to this series generates a lot of rejects against
> > powerpc:
> > 
> > -rw-rw-r-- 1 akpm akpm  493 May 25 15:06 arch/powerpc/kernel/kgdb.c.rej
> > -rw-rw-r-- 1 akpm akpm 6461 May 25 15:06 arch/powerpc/kernel/trace/ftrace.c.rej
> > -rw-rw-r-- 1 akpm akpm  447 May 25 15:06 arch/powerpc/mm/fault.c.rej
> > -rw-rw-r-- 1 akpm akpm  623 May 25 15:06 arch/powerpc/perf/core-book3s.c.rej
> > -rw-rw-r-- 1 akpm akpm 1408 May 25 15:06 arch/riscv/kernel/patch.c.rej
> > 
> > the arch/powerpc/kernel/trace/ftrace.c ones aren't very trivial.
> > 
> > It's -rc7.  Perhaps we should park all this until 5.8-rc1?
> 
> As this is a pre-condition for the set_fs removal I'd really like to
> get the actual changes in.  All these conflicts seem to be about the
> last three cleanup patches just doing renaming, so can we just skip
> those three for now?  Then we can do the rename right after 5.8-rc1
> when we have the least chances for conflicts.

That seems to have worked.  "[PATCH 23/23] maccess: return -ERANGE when
copy_from_kernel_nofault_allowed fails" needed a bit of massaging to both
the patch and to the patch title.