linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] tee subsystem pin_user

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: <CAOesGMjKq3ECJuaMANq=AyDMLXYvorafMYS3LDr9YMH6M9VdYA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 21 Aug 2020 14:18:53 -0700
From:   Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>
To:     John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
Cc:     Jens Wiklander <jens.wiklander@...aro.org>,
        ARM-SoC Maintainers <arm@...nel.org>,
        SoC Team <soc@...nel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        tee-dev@...ts.linaro.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] tee subsystem pin_user_pages for v5.8

On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 12:58 PM John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com> wrote:
>
> On 8/21/20 11:49 AM, Olof Johansson wrote:
> > On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 03:12:59PM +0200, Jens Wiklander wrote:
> >> Hello arm-soc maintainers,
> >>
> >> Please pull this small patch converting the tee subsystem to use
> >> pin_user_pages() instead of get_user_pages().
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Jens
> >>
> >> The following changes since commit ae83d0b416db002fe95601e7f97f64b59514d936:
> >>
> >>    Linux 5.7-rc2 (2020-04-19 14:35:30 -0700)
> >>
> >> are available in the Git repository at:
> >>
> >>    git://git.linaro.org:/people/jens.wiklander/linux-tee.git tags/tee-pin-user-pages-for-5.8
> >>
> >> for you to fetch changes up to 37f6b4d5f47b600ec4ab6682c005a44a1bfca530:
> >>
> >>    tee: convert get_user_pages() --> pin_user_pages() (2020-05-26 10:42:41 +0200)
> >
> > Hi, I noticed this never got merged, but I don't see any follow-up here that
> > retracts it. Is it still pending merge such that I should queue it for v5.10?
> >
>
> I think so. I had marked it in my notes as "accepted, and the maintainer will
> eventually merge it", and I left it at that. It's still desirable.
>

Looks like it conflicts with some of the later work. Jens, given the
timelines here it's probably easiest all around if you rebase/respin
and send a fresh pull request. I could fix it up but you'd still need
to review that so the amount of work is probably less if you do it
directly.


-Olof