[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <567f90b6-fa25-6ef3-73b8-45462cc7ceb2@arm.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2020 12:35:41 +0100
From: Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@....com>
To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>
Cc: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>, kasan-dev@...glegroups.com,
Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>,
Evgenii Stepanov <eugenis@...gle.com>,
Elena Petrova <lenaptr@...gle.com>,
Branislav Rankov <Branislav.Rankov@....com>,
Kevin Brodsky <kevin.brodsky@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 31/35] kasan, arm64: implement HW_TAGS runtime
On 8/27/20 11:45 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 07:27:13PM +0200, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
>> diff --git a/mm/kasan/mte.c b/mm/kasan/mte.c
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 000000000000..43b7d74161e5
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/mm/kasan/mte.c
>
> Since this is an arm64-specific kasan backend, I wonder whether it makes
> more sense to keep it under arch/arm64 (mte-kasan.c).
>
Yes I agree, I had a similar comment in patch 25. I think we should implement
the mte backend entirely in arch code because other architectures might want to
enable the feature (e.g. Sparc ADI).
>> diff --git a/mm/kasan/report_mte.c b/mm/kasan/report_mte.c
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 000000000000..dbbf3aaa8798
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/mm/kasan/report_mte.c
>
> Same for this one.
>
--
Regards,
Vincenzo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists