linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] sh: remove sh5 support

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]

Date:   Fri, 5 Jun 2020 11:59:54 -0400
From:   Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
To:     John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@...sik.fu-berlin.de>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, linux-sh@...r.kernel.org,
        ysato@...rs.sourceforge.jp, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] sh: remove sh5 support

On Fri, Jun 05, 2020 at 05:47:34PM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> On 6/5/20 5:43 PM, Rich Felker wrote:
> >> Can you include the patch as well?
> > 
> > This one is outside arch/sh and I'm not sure it's permissible to go up
> > through my tree. I was also under the impression that only part 1 was
> > needed to fix the immediate problem on sh and tha part 2 was for
> > completeness and to make sure the same doesn't happen on other archs
> > in the future, but maybe my understanding here is incorrect.
> 
> Ah, sorry, I missed that. You're right, it should probably go through
> someone else's tree then.

Do you know if it's needed to un-break sh4? If so we should push to
get whoever has jurisdiction over it to include it; otherwise I'm
indifferent.

> >> And would it be okay to send a PR to Linus
> >> after that?
> > 
> > Sure, will do right away once we resolve what to do with the above,
> > and provided you don't have anything else you want me to evaluate for
> > inclusion.
> 
> Since we haven't agreed on the __get_user_64() patch yet, I would be
> in favor of getting the changes pulled in that have already been
> reviewed and acknowledged. I rather don't want the other contributors
> to wait any longer. Arnd in particular has done a tremendous job to
> untangle all the SH-5 code and I think we should finally get this
> in :).

Absolutely agreed.

Rich