linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v6 0/4] arm64: support FEAT_BBM level 2 and large block mapping when rodata=full

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: <b4ba5c9c-fc9c-435b-9110-1014127bef05@arm.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2025 15:52:24 +0100
From: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>
To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Cc: Yang Shi <yang@...amperecomputing.com>, will@...nel.org,
 akpm@...ux-foundation.org, Miko.Lenczewski@....com, dev.jain@....com,
 scott@...amperecomputing.com, cl@...two.org,
 linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v6 0/4] arm64: support FEAT_BBM level 2 and large
 block mapping when rodata=full

On 05/08/2025 15:39, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 05, 2025 at 09:16:31AM +0100, Ryan Roberts wrote:
>> On 05/08/2025 09:13, Ryan Roberts wrote:
>>> This is a new version built on top of Yang Shi's work at [1]. Yang and I have
>>> been discussing (disagreeing?) about the best way to implement the last 2
>>> patches. So I've reworked them and am posting as RFC to illustrate how I think
>>> this feature should be implemented, but I've retained Yang as primary author
>>> since it is all based on his work. I'd appreciate feedback from Catalin and/or
>>> Will on whether this is the right approach, so that hopefully we can get this
>>> into shape for 6.18.
>>
>> I forgot to mention that it applies on Linus's current master (it depends upon
>> mm and arm64 changes that will first appear in v6.17-rc1 and are already merged
>> in master). I'm using 89748acdf226 as the base.
> 
> It's fine as an RFC but, for upstream, please rebase on top of -rc1
> rather than a random commit in the middle of the merging window. Also
> note that many maintainers ignore new series posted during the merging
> window.

Yeah understood - I'm going to be out from Saturday for 2 weeks so thought it
was better to post an RFC now hoping to get some feedback so I can repost
against -rc3 when I'm back and have a chance of getting it into v6.18.