[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210504041235.25mq7il525oiimc6@treble>
Date: Mon, 3 May 2021 23:12:35 -0500
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] x86/uaccess: Use pointer masking to limit uaccess
speculation
On Tue, May 04, 2021 at 12:31:09AM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> On Mon, May 03, 2021 at 06:31:54PM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 04:38:48AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > > On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 02:53:54PM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > > > Al,
> > > >
> > > > This depends on Christoph's set_fs() removal patches. Would you be
> > > > willing to take this in your tree?
> > >
> > > in #uaccess.x86 and #for-next
> >
> > Hm, I think this got dropped somehow. Will repost.
>
> Ow... #uaccess.x86 got dropped from -next at some point, mea culpa.
> What I have is b4674e334bb4; it's 5.8-based (well, 5.9-rc1). It
> missed post-5.9 merge window and got lost. Could you rebase to
> to more or less current tree and repost?
No problem, I'll refresh it against the latest.
--
Josh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists