From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
To: Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@google.com>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
Kate Stewart <kstewart@linuxfoundation.org>,
"open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
"open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK"
<linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>,
Chintan Pandya <cpandya@codeaurora.org>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
Jacob Bramley <Jacob.Bramley@arm.com>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>,
Evgenii Stepanov <eugenis@google.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
Ruben Ayrapetyan <Ruben.Ayrapetyan@arm.com>,
Ramana Radhakrishnan <Ramana.Radhakrishnan@arm.com>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
Kostya Serebryany <kcc@google.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
Lee Smith <Lee.Smith@arm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 0/8] arm64: untag user pointers passed to the kernel
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2018 14:08:36 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181206140836.vhhfnv7hta6pzwd4@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAAeHK+x9CuqqgvP6pZEV1Gz5cFHNpwsuUDbWQFHFzTy8GBMPKA@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 01:44:24PM +0100, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 7:16 PM Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 03:48:10PM +0100, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
> > > On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 3:36 PM, Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@google.com> wrote:
> > > > Changes in v8:
> > > > - Rebased onto 65102238 (4.20-rc1).
> > > > - Added a note to the cover letter on why syscall wrappers/shims that untag
> > > > user pointers won't work.
> > > > - Added a note to the cover letter that this patchset has been merged into
> > > > the Pixel 2 kernel tree.
> > > > - Documentation fixes, in particular added a list of syscalls that don't
> > > > support tagged user pointers.
> > >
> > > I've changed the documentation to be more specific, please take a look.
> > >
> > > I haven't done anything about adding a way for the user to find out
> > > that the kernel supports this ABI extension. I don't know what would
> > > the the preferred way to do this, and we haven't received any comments
> > > on that from anybody else. Probing "on some innocuous syscall
> > > currently returning -EFAULT on tagged pointer arguments" works though,
> > > as you mentioned.
> >
> > We've had some internal discussions and also talked to some people at
> > Plumbers. I think the best option is to introduce an AT_FLAGS bit to
> > describe the ABI relaxation on tagged pointers. Vincenzo is going to
> > propose a patch on top of this series.
>
> So should I wait for a patch from Vincenzo before posting v9 or post
> it as is? Or try to develop this patch myself?
The reason Vincenzo hasn't posted his patches yet is that we are still
debating internally how to document which syscalls accept non-zero
top-byte, what to do with future syscalls for which we don't know the
semantics.
Happy to take the discussion to the public list if Vincenzo posts his
patches. The conclusion of the ABI discussion may have an impact on the
actual implementation that you are proposing in this series.
--
Catalin
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: catalin.marinas at arm.com (Catalin Marinas)
Subject: [PATCH v8 0/8] arm64: untag user pointers passed to the kernel
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2018 14:08:36 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181206140836.vhhfnv7hta6pzwd4@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAAeHK+x9CuqqgvP6pZEV1Gz5cFHNpwsuUDbWQFHFzTy8GBMPKA@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 01:44:24PM +0100, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 7:16 PM Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas at arm.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 03:48:10PM +0100, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
> > > On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 3:36 PM, Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl at google.com> wrote:
> > > > Changes in v8:
> > > > - Rebased onto 65102238 (4.20-rc1).
> > > > - Added a note to the cover letter on why syscall wrappers/shims that untag
> > > > user pointers won't work.
> > > > - Added a note to the cover letter that this patchset has been merged into
> > > > the Pixel 2 kernel tree.
> > > > - Documentation fixes, in particular added a list of syscalls that don't
> > > > support tagged user pointers.
> > >
> > > I've changed the documentation to be more specific, please take a look.
> > >
> > > I haven't done anything about adding a way for the user to find out
> > > that the kernel supports this ABI extension. I don't know what would
> > > the the preferred way to do this, and we haven't received any comments
> > > on that from anybody else. Probing "on some innocuous syscall
> > > currently returning -EFAULT on tagged pointer arguments" works though,
> > > as you mentioned.
> >
> > We've had some internal discussions and also talked to some people at
> > Plumbers. I think the best option is to introduce an AT_FLAGS bit to
> > describe the ABI relaxation on tagged pointers. Vincenzo is going to
> > propose a patch on top of this series.
>
> So should I wait for a patch from Vincenzo before posting v9 or post
> it as is? Or try to develop this patch myself?
The reason Vincenzo hasn't posted his patches yet is that we are still
debating internally how to document which syscalls accept non-zero
top-byte, what to do with future syscalls for which we don't know the
semantics.
Happy to take the discussion to the public list if Vincenzo posts his
patches. The conclusion of the ABI discussion may have an impact on the
actual implementation that you are proposing in this series.
--
Catalin
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: catalin.marinas@arm.com (Catalin Marinas)
Subject: [PATCH v8 0/8] arm64: untag user pointers passed to the kernel
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2018 14:08:36 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181206140836.vhhfnv7hta6pzwd4@localhost> (raw)
Message-ID: <20181206140836.TpVOtwU4sciMSUBKyEmnpdaU1hvj0-i0ij_hFpgyw3E@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAAeHK+x9CuqqgvP6pZEV1Gz5cFHNpwsuUDbWQFHFzTy8GBMPKA@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Dec 06, 2018@01:44:24PM +0100, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018@7:16 PM Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 08, 2018@03:48:10PM +0100, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
> > > On Thu, Nov 8, 2018@3:36 PM, Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@google.com> wrote:
> > > > Changes in v8:
> > > > - Rebased onto 65102238 (4.20-rc1).
> > > > - Added a note to the cover letter on why syscall wrappers/shims that untag
> > > > user pointers won't work.
> > > > - Added a note to the cover letter that this patchset has been merged into
> > > > the Pixel 2 kernel tree.
> > > > - Documentation fixes, in particular added a list of syscalls that don't
> > > > support tagged user pointers.
> > >
> > > I've changed the documentation to be more specific, please take a look.
> > >
> > > I haven't done anything about adding a way for the user to find out
> > > that the kernel supports this ABI extension. I don't know what would
> > > the the preferred way to do this, and we haven't received any comments
> > > on that from anybody else. Probing "on some innocuous syscall
> > > currently returning -EFAULT on tagged pointer arguments" works though,
> > > as you mentioned.
> >
> > We've had some internal discussions and also talked to some people at
> > Plumbers. I think the best option is to introduce an AT_FLAGS bit to
> > describe the ABI relaxation on tagged pointers. Vincenzo is going to
> > propose a patch on top of this series.
>
> So should I wait for a patch from Vincenzo before posting v9 or post
> it as is? Or try to develop this patch myself?
The reason Vincenzo hasn't posted his patches yet is that we are still
debating internally how to document which syscalls accept non-zero
top-byte, what to do with future syscalls for which we don't know the
semantics.
Happy to take the discussion to the public list if Vincenzo posts his
patches. The conclusion of the ABI discussion may have an impact on the
actual implementation that you are proposing in this series.
--
Catalin
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
To: Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@google.com>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
Kate Stewart <kstewart@linuxfoundation.org>,
"open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
"open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK"
<linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>,
Chintan Pandya <cpandya@codeaurora.org>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
Jacob Bramley <Jacob.Bramley@arm.com>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>,
Evgenii Stepanov <eugenis@google.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
Ruben Ayrapetyan <Ruben.Ayrapetyan@arm.com>,
Ramana Radhakrishnan <Ramana.Radhakrishnan@arm.com>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
Kostya Serebryany <kc>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 0/8] arm64: untag user pointers passed to the kernel
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2018 14:08:36 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181206140836.vhhfnv7hta6pzwd4@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAAeHK+x9CuqqgvP6pZEV1Gz5cFHNpwsuUDbWQFHFzTy8GBMPKA@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 01:44:24PM +0100, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 7:16 PM Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 03:48:10PM +0100, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
> > > On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 3:36 PM, Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@google.com> wrote:
> > > > Changes in v8:
> > > > - Rebased onto 65102238 (4.20-rc1).
> > > > - Added a note to the cover letter on why syscall wrappers/shims that untag
> > > > user pointers won't work.
> > > > - Added a note to the cover letter that this patchset has been merged into
> > > > the Pixel 2 kernel tree.
> > > > - Documentation fixes, in particular added a list of syscalls that don't
> > > > support tagged user pointers.
> > >
> > > I've changed the documentation to be more specific, please take a look.
> > >
> > > I haven't done anything about adding a way for the user to find out
> > > that the kernel supports this ABI extension. I don't know what would
> > > the the preferred way to do this, and we haven't received any comments
> > > on that from anybody else. Probing "on some innocuous syscall
> > > currently returning -EFAULT on tagged pointer arguments" works though,
> > > as you mentioned.
> >
> > We've had some internal discussions and also talked to some people at
> > Plumbers. I think the best option is to introduce an AT_FLAGS bit to
> > describe the ABI relaxation on tagged pointers. Vincenzo is going to
> > propose a patch on top of this series.
>
> So should I wait for a patch from Vincenzo before posting v9 or post
> it as is? Or try to develop this patch myself?
The reason Vincenzo hasn't posted his patches yet is that we are still
debating internally how to document which syscalls accept non-zero
top-byte, what to do with future syscalls for which we don't know the
semantics.
Happy to take the discussion to the public list if Vincenzo posts his
patches. The conclusion of the ABI discussion may have an impact on the
actual implementation that you are proposing in this series.
--
Catalin
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
To: Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@google.com>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
Kate Stewart <kstewart@linuxfoundation.org>,
"open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
Kostya Serebryany <kcc@google.com>,
"open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK"
<linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>,
Chintan Pandya <cpandya@codeaurora.org>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
Jacob Bramley <Jacob.Bramley@arm.com>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>,
Evgenii Stepanov <eugenis@google.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
Ruben Ayrapetyan <Ruben.Ayrapetyan@arm.com>,
Ramana Radhakrishnan <Ramana.Radhakrishnan@arm.com>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com>,
Lee Smith <Lee.Smith@arm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 0/8] arm64: untag user pointers passed to the kernel
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2018 14:08:36 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181206140836.vhhfnv7hta6pzwd4@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAAeHK+x9CuqqgvP6pZEV1Gz5cFHNpwsuUDbWQFHFzTy8GBMPKA@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 01:44:24PM +0100, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 7:16 PM Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 03:48:10PM +0100, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
> > > On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 3:36 PM, Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@google.com> wrote:
> > > > Changes in v8:
> > > > - Rebased onto 65102238 (4.20-rc1).
> > > > - Added a note to the cover letter on why syscall wrappers/shims that untag
> > > > user pointers won't work.
> > > > - Added a note to the cover letter that this patchset has been merged into
> > > > the Pixel 2 kernel tree.
> > > > - Documentation fixes, in particular added a list of syscalls that don't
> > > > support tagged user pointers.
> > >
> > > I've changed the documentation to be more specific, please take a look.
> > >
> > > I haven't done anything about adding a way for the user to find out
> > > that the kernel supports this ABI extension. I don't know what would
> > > the the preferred way to do this, and we haven't received any comments
> > > on that from anybody else. Probing "on some innocuous syscall
> > > currently returning -EFAULT on tagged pointer arguments" works though,
> > > as you mentioned.
> >
> > We've had some internal discussions and also talked to some people at
> > Plumbers. I think the best option is to introduce an AT_FLAGS bit to
> > describe the ABI relaxation on tagged pointers. Vincenzo is going to
> > propose a patch on top of this series.
>
> So should I wait for a patch from Vincenzo before posting v9 or post
> it as is? Or try to develop this patch myself?
The reason Vincenzo hasn't posted his patches yet is that we are still
debating internally how to document which syscalls accept non-zero
top-byte, what to do with future syscalls for which we don't know the
semantics.
Happy to take the discussion to the public list if Vincenzo posts his
patches. The conclusion of the ABI discussion may have an impact on the
actual implementation that you are proposing in this series.
--
Catalin
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-12-06 14:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 88+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-11-08 14:36 [PATCH v8 0/8] arm64: untag user pointers passed to the kernel Andrey Konovalov
2018-11-08 14:36 ` Andrey Konovalov
2018-11-08 14:36 ` Andrey Konovalov
2018-11-08 14:36 ` Andrey Konovalov
2018-11-08 14:36 ` andreyknvl
2018-11-08 14:36 ` [PATCH v8 1/8] arm64: add type casts to untagged_addr macro Andrey Konovalov
2018-11-08 14:36 ` Andrey Konovalov
2018-11-08 14:36 ` Andrey Konovalov
2018-11-08 14:36 ` andreyknvl
2018-11-29 18:22 ` Catalin Marinas
2018-11-29 18:22 ` Catalin Marinas
2018-11-29 18:22 ` Catalin Marinas
2018-11-29 18:22 ` Catalin Marinas
2018-11-29 18:22 ` catalin.marinas
2018-12-06 12:34 ` Andrey Konovalov
2018-12-06 12:34 ` Andrey Konovalov
2018-12-06 12:34 ` Andrey Konovalov
2018-12-06 12:34 ` Andrey Konovalov
2018-12-06 12:34 ` Andrey Konovalov
2018-12-06 12:34 ` andreyknvl
2018-11-08 14:36 ` [PATCH v8 2/8] uaccess: add untagged_addr definition for other arches Andrey Konovalov
2018-11-08 14:36 ` Andrey Konovalov
2018-11-08 14:36 ` Andrey Konovalov
2018-11-08 14:36 ` andreyknvl
2018-11-29 18:23 ` Catalin Marinas
2018-11-29 18:23 ` Catalin Marinas
2018-11-29 18:23 ` Catalin Marinas
2018-11-29 18:23 ` Catalin Marinas
2018-11-29 18:23 ` catalin.marinas
2018-12-06 12:36 ` Andrey Konovalov
2018-12-06 12:36 ` Andrey Konovalov
2018-12-06 12:36 ` Andrey Konovalov
2018-12-06 12:36 ` Andrey Konovalov
2018-12-06 12:36 ` Andrey Konovalov
2018-12-06 12:36 ` andreyknvl
2018-11-08 14:36 ` [PATCH v8 3/8] arm64: untag user addresses in access_ok and __uaccess_mask_ptr Andrey Konovalov
2018-11-08 14:36 ` Andrey Konovalov
2018-11-08 14:36 ` Andrey Konovalov
2018-11-08 14:36 ` andreyknvl
2018-11-29 18:24 ` Catalin Marinas
2018-11-29 18:24 ` Catalin Marinas
2018-11-29 18:24 ` Catalin Marinas
2018-11-29 18:24 ` Catalin Marinas
2018-11-29 18:24 ` catalin.marinas
2018-11-08 14:36 ` [PATCH v8 4/8] mm, arm64: untag user addresses in mm/gup.c Andrey Konovalov
2018-11-08 14:36 ` Andrey Konovalov
2018-11-08 14:36 ` Andrey Konovalov
2018-11-08 14:36 ` andreyknvl
2018-11-08 14:36 ` [PATCH v8 5/8] lib, arm64: untag addrs passed to strncpy_from_user and strnlen_user Andrey Konovalov
2018-11-08 14:36 ` Andrey Konovalov
2018-11-08 14:36 ` Andrey Konovalov
2018-11-08 14:36 ` andreyknvl
2018-11-08 14:36 ` [PATCH v8 6/8] fs, arm64: untag user address in copy_mount_options Andrey Konovalov
2018-11-08 14:36 ` Andrey Konovalov
2018-11-08 14:36 ` Andrey Konovalov
2018-11-08 14:36 ` andreyknvl
2018-11-08 14:36 ` [PATCH v8 7/8] arm64: update Documentation/arm64/tagged-pointers.txt Andrey Konovalov
2018-11-08 14:36 ` Andrey Konovalov
2018-11-08 14:36 ` Andrey Konovalov
2018-11-08 14:36 ` andreyknvl
2018-11-08 14:36 ` [PATCH v8 8/8] selftests, arm64: add a selftest for passing tagged pointers to kernel Andrey Konovalov
2018-11-08 14:36 ` Andrey Konovalov
2018-11-08 14:36 ` Andrey Konovalov
2018-11-08 14:36 ` andreyknvl
2018-11-08 14:48 ` [PATCH v8 0/8] arm64: untag user pointers passed to the kernel Andrey Konovalov
2018-11-08 14:48 ` Andrey Konovalov
2018-11-08 14:48 ` Andrey Konovalov
2018-11-08 14:48 ` Andrey Konovalov
2018-11-08 14:48 ` Andrey Konovalov
2018-11-08 14:48 ` andreyknvl
2018-11-29 18:16 ` Catalin Marinas
2018-11-29 18:16 ` Catalin Marinas
2018-11-29 18:16 ` Catalin Marinas
2018-11-29 18:16 ` Catalin Marinas
2018-11-29 18:16 ` Catalin Marinas
2018-11-29 18:16 ` catalin.marinas
2018-12-06 12:44 ` Andrey Konovalov
2018-12-06 12:44 ` Andrey Konovalov
2018-12-06 12:44 ` Andrey Konovalov
2018-12-06 12:44 ` Andrey Konovalov
2018-12-06 12:44 ` Andrey Konovalov
2018-12-06 12:44 ` andreyknvl
2018-12-06 14:08 ` Catalin Marinas [this message]
2018-12-06 14:08 ` Catalin Marinas
2018-12-06 14:08 ` Catalin Marinas
2018-12-06 14:08 ` Catalin Marinas
2018-12-06 14:08 ` Catalin Marinas
2018-12-06 14:08 ` catalin.marinas
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20181206140836.vhhfnv7hta6pzwd4@localhost \
--to=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=Jacob.Bramley@arm.com \
--cc=Lee.Smith@arm.com \
--cc=Ramana.Radhakrishnan@arm.com \
--cc=Ruben.Ayrapetyan@arm.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=andreyknvl@google.com \
--cc=cpandya@codeaurora.org \
--cc=dvyukov@google.com \
--cc=eugenis@google.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=kcc@google.com \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com \
--cc=kstewart@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=robin.murphy@arm.com \
--cc=shuah@kernel.org \
--cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.