From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
To: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
kvm@vger.kernel.org, Szabolcs Nagy <Szabolcs.Nagy@arm.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@arm.com>,
Jacob Bramley <Jacob.Bramley@arm.com>,
Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>,
linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>,
Ramana Radhakrishnan <Ramana.Radhakrishnan@arm.com>,
Evgeniy Stepanov <eugenis@google.com>,
linux-media@vger.kernel.org, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
Ruben Ayrapetyan <Ruben.Ayrapetyan@arm.com>,
Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@google.com>,
Kevin Brodsky <kevin.brodsky@arm.com>,
Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>,
Yishai
Subject: Re: [PATCH v15 05/17] arms64: untag user pointers passed to memory syscalls
Date: Wed, 29 May 2019 14:23:42 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190529132341.27t3knoxpb7t7y3g@mbp> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190529124224.GE28398@e103592.cambridge.arm.com>
On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 01:42:25PM +0100, Dave P Martin wrote:
> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 05:34:00PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 04:56:45PM +0100, Dave P Martin wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 04:40:58PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > > My thoughts on allowing tags (quick look):
> > > >
> > > > brk - no
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > > mlock, mlock2, munlock - yes
> > > > mmap - no (we may change this with MTE but not for TBI)
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > > mprotect - yes
> > >
> > > I haven't following this discussion closely... what's the rationale for
> > > the inconsistencies here (feel free to refer me back to the discussion
> > > if it's elsewhere).
> >
> > _My_ rationale (feel free to disagree) is that mmap() by default would
> > not return a tagged address (ignoring MTE for now). If it gets passed a
> > tagged address or a "tagged NULL" (for lack of a better name) we don't
> > have clear semantics of whether the returned address should be tagged in
> > this ABI relaxation. I'd rather reserve this specific behaviour if we
> > overload the non-zero tag meaning of mmap() for MTE. Similar reasoning
> > for mremap(), at least on the new_address argument (not entirely sure
> > about old_address).
> >
> > munmap() should probably follow the mmap() rules.
> >
> > As for brk(), I don't see why the user would need to pass a tagged
> > address, we can't associate any meaning to this tag.
> >
> > For the rest, since it's likely such addresses would have been tagged by
> > malloc() in user space, we should allow tagged pointers.
>
> Those arguments seem reasonable. We should try to capture this
> somewhere when documenting the ABI.
>
> To be clear, I'm not sure that we should guarantee anywhere that a
> tagged pointer is rejected: rather the behaviour should probably be
> left unspecified. Then we can tidy it up incrementally.
>
> (The behaviour is unspecified today, in any case.)
What is specified (or rather de-facto ABI) today is that passing a user
address above TASK_SIZE (e.g. non-zero top byte) would fail in most
cases. If we relax this with the TBI we may end up with some de-facto
ABI before we actually get MTE hardware. Tightening it afterwards may be
slightly more problematic, although MTE needs to be an explicit opt-in.
IOW, I wouldn't want to unnecessarily relax the ABI if we don't need to.
--
Catalin
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
To: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
kvm@vger.kernel.org, Szabolcs Nagy <Szabolcs.Nagy@arm.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@arm.com>,
Jacob Bramley <Jacob.Bramley@arm.com>,
Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>,
linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>,
Ramana Radhakrishnan <Ramana.Radhakrishnan@arm.com>,
Evgeniy Stepanov <eugenis@google.com>,
linux-media@vger.kernel.org, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
Ruben Ayrapetyan <Ruben.Ayrapetyan@arm.com>,
Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@google.com>,
Kevin Brodsky <kevin.brodsky@arm.com>,
Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>,
Yishai Hadas <yishaih@mellanox.com>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@kernel.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
Kostya Serebryany <kcc@google.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
Felix Kuehling <Felix.Kuehling@amd.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Jens Wiklander <jens.wiklander@linaro.org>,
Lee Smith <Lee.Smith@arm.com>,
Alexander Deucher <Alexander.Deucher@amd.com>,
Andrew Murray <andrew.murray@arm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
Christian Koenig <Christian.Koenig@amd.com>,
Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v15 05/17] arms64: untag user pointers passed to memory syscalls
Date: Wed, 29 May 2019 14:23:42 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190529132341.27t3knoxpb7t7y3g@mbp> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190529124224.GE28398@e103592.cambridge.arm.com>
On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 01:42:25PM +0100, Dave P Martin wrote:
> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 05:34:00PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 04:56:45PM +0100, Dave P Martin wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 04:40:58PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > > My thoughts on allowing tags (quick look):
> > > >
> > > > brk - no
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > > mlock, mlock2, munlock - yes
> > > > mmap - no (we may change this with MTE but not for TBI)
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > > mprotect - yes
> > >
> > > I haven't following this discussion closely... what's the rationale for
> > > the inconsistencies here (feel free to refer me back to the discussion
> > > if it's elsewhere).
> >
> > _My_ rationale (feel free to disagree) is that mmap() by default would
> > not return a tagged address (ignoring MTE for now). If it gets passed a
> > tagged address or a "tagged NULL" (for lack of a better name) we don't
> > have clear semantics of whether the returned address should be tagged in
> > this ABI relaxation. I'd rather reserve this specific behaviour if we
> > overload the non-zero tag meaning of mmap() for MTE. Similar reasoning
> > for mremap(), at least on the new_address argument (not entirely sure
> > about old_address).
> >
> > munmap() should probably follow the mmap() rules.
> >
> > As for brk(), I don't see why the user would need to pass a tagged
> > address, we can't associate any meaning to this tag.
> >
> > For the rest, since it's likely such addresses would have been tagged by
> > malloc() in user space, we should allow tagged pointers.
>
> Those arguments seem reasonable. We should try to capture this
> somewhere when documenting the ABI.
>
> To be clear, I'm not sure that we should guarantee anywhere that a
> tagged pointer is rejected: rather the behaviour should probably be
> left unspecified. Then we can tidy it up incrementally.
>
> (The behaviour is unspecified today, in any case.)
What is specified (or rather de-facto ABI) today is that passing a user
address above TASK_SIZE (e.g. non-zero top byte) would fail in most
cases. If we relax this with the TBI we may end up with some de-facto
ABI before we actually get MTE hardware. Tightening it afterwards may be
slightly more problematic, although MTE needs to be an explicit opt-in.
IOW, I wouldn't want to unnecessarily relax the ABI if we don't need to.
--
Catalin
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: catalin.marinas at arm.com (Catalin Marinas)
Subject: [PATCH v15 05/17] arms64: untag user pointers passed to memory syscalls
Date: Wed, 29 May 2019 14:23:42 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190529132341.27t3knoxpb7t7y3g@mbp> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190529124224.GE28398@e103592.cambridge.arm.com>
On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 01:42:25PM +0100, Dave P Martin wrote:
> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 05:34:00PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 04:56:45PM +0100, Dave P Martin wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 04:40:58PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > > My thoughts on allowing tags (quick look):
> > > >
> > > > brk - no
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > > mlock, mlock2, munlock - yes
> > > > mmap - no (we may change this with MTE but not for TBI)
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > > mprotect - yes
> > >
> > > I haven't following this discussion closely... what's the rationale for
> > > the inconsistencies here (feel free to refer me back to the discussion
> > > if it's elsewhere).
> >
> > _My_ rationale (feel free to disagree) is that mmap() by default would
> > not return a tagged address (ignoring MTE for now). If it gets passed a
> > tagged address or a "tagged NULL" (for lack of a better name) we don't
> > have clear semantics of whether the returned address should be tagged in
> > this ABI relaxation. I'd rather reserve this specific behaviour if we
> > overload the non-zero tag meaning of mmap() for MTE. Similar reasoning
> > for mremap(), at least on the new_address argument (not entirely sure
> > about old_address).
> >
> > munmap() should probably follow the mmap() rules.
> >
> > As for brk(), I don't see why the user would need to pass a tagged
> > address, we can't associate any meaning to this tag.
> >
> > For the rest, since it's likely such addresses would have been tagged by
> > malloc() in user space, we should allow tagged pointers.
>
> Those arguments seem reasonable. We should try to capture this
> somewhere when documenting the ABI.
>
> To be clear, I'm not sure that we should guarantee anywhere that a
> tagged pointer is rejected: rather the behaviour should probably be
> left unspecified. Then we can tidy it up incrementally.
>
> (The behaviour is unspecified today, in any case.)
What is specified (or rather de-facto ABI) today is that passing a user
address above TASK_SIZE (e.g. non-zero top byte) would fail in most
cases. If we relax this with the TBI we may end up with some de-facto
ABI before we actually get MTE hardware. Tightening it afterwards may be
slightly more problematic, although MTE needs to be an explicit opt-in.
IOW, I wouldn't want to unnecessarily relax the ABI if we don't need to.
--
Catalin
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: catalin.marinas@arm.com (Catalin Marinas)
Subject: [PATCH v15 05/17] arms64: untag user pointers passed to memory syscalls
Date: Wed, 29 May 2019 14:23:42 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190529132341.27t3knoxpb7t7y3g@mbp> (raw)
Message-ID: <20190529132342.xNKDYAveTA91hFg4_ghCx8h2w7QPFYe624M9DlG61rQ@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190529124224.GE28398@e103592.cambridge.arm.com>
On Wed, May 29, 2019@01:42:25PM +0100, Dave P Martin wrote:
> On Tue, May 28, 2019@05:34:00PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Tue, May 28, 2019@04:56:45PM +0100, Dave P Martin wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 28, 2019@04:40:58PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > > My thoughts on allowing tags (quick look):
> > > >
> > > > brk - no
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > > mlock, mlock2, munlock - yes
> > > > mmap - no (we may change this with MTE but not for TBI)
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > > mprotect - yes
> > >
> > > I haven't following this discussion closely... what's the rationale for
> > > the inconsistencies here (feel free to refer me back to the discussion
> > > if it's elsewhere).
> >
> > _My_ rationale (feel free to disagree) is that mmap() by default would
> > not return a tagged address (ignoring MTE for now). If it gets passed a
> > tagged address or a "tagged NULL" (for lack of a better name) we don't
> > have clear semantics of whether the returned address should be tagged in
> > this ABI relaxation. I'd rather reserve this specific behaviour if we
> > overload the non-zero tag meaning of mmap() for MTE. Similar reasoning
> > for mremap(), at least on the new_address argument (not entirely sure
> > about old_address).
> >
> > munmap() should probably follow the mmap() rules.
> >
> > As for brk(), I don't see why the user would need to pass a tagged
> > address, we can't associate any meaning to this tag.
> >
> > For the rest, since it's likely such addresses would have been tagged by
> > malloc() in user space, we should allow tagged pointers.
>
> Those arguments seem reasonable. We should try to capture this
> somewhere when documenting the ABI.
>
> To be clear, I'm not sure that we should guarantee anywhere that a
> tagged pointer is rejected: rather the behaviour should probably be
> left unspecified. Then we can tidy it up incrementally.
>
> (The behaviour is unspecified today, in any case.)
What is specified (or rather de-facto ABI) today is that passing a user
address above TASK_SIZE (e.g. non-zero top byte) would fail in most
cases. If we relax this with the TBI we may end up with some de-facto
ABI before we actually get MTE hardware. Tightening it afterwards may be
slightly more problematic, although MTE needs to be an explicit opt-in.
IOW, I wouldn't want to unnecessarily relax the ABI if we don't need to.
--
Catalin
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
To: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
kvm@vger.kernel.org, Christian Koenig <Christian.Koenig@amd.com>,
Szabolcs Nagy <Szabolcs.Nagy@arm.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
Lee Smith <Lee.Smith@arm.com>,
linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@arm.com>,
Jacob Bramley <Jacob.Bramley@arm.com>,
Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>,
linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
Evgeniy Stepanov <eugenis@google.com>,
linux-media@vger.kernel.org, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
Ruben Ayrapetyan <Ruben.Ayrapetyan@arm.com>,
Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@google.com>,
Kevin Brodsky <kevin.brodsky@arm.com>,
Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@kernel.org>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>,
Kostya Serebryany <kcc@google.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
Yishai Hadas <yishaih@mellanox.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Jens Wiklander <jens.wiklander@linaro.org>,
Ramana Radhakrishnan <Ramana.Radhakrishnan@arm.com>,
Alexander Deucher <Alexander.Deucher@amd.com>,
Andrew Murray <andrew.murray@arm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
Felix Kuehling <Felix.Kuehling@amd.com>,
Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v15 05/17] arms64: untag user pointers passed to memory syscalls
Date: Wed, 29 May 2019 14:23:42 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190529132341.27t3knoxpb7t7y3g@mbp> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190529124224.GE28398@e103592.cambridge.arm.com>
On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 01:42:25PM +0100, Dave P Martin wrote:
> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 05:34:00PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 04:56:45PM +0100, Dave P Martin wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 04:40:58PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > > My thoughts on allowing tags (quick look):
> > > >
> > > > brk - no
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > > mlock, mlock2, munlock - yes
> > > > mmap - no (we may change this with MTE but not for TBI)
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > > mprotect - yes
> > >
> > > I haven't following this discussion closely... what's the rationale for
> > > the inconsistencies here (feel free to refer me back to the discussion
> > > if it's elsewhere).
> >
> > _My_ rationale (feel free to disagree) is that mmap() by default would
> > not return a tagged address (ignoring MTE for now). If it gets passed a
> > tagged address or a "tagged NULL" (for lack of a better name) we don't
> > have clear semantics of whether the returned address should be tagged in
> > this ABI relaxation. I'd rather reserve this specific behaviour if we
> > overload the non-zero tag meaning of mmap() for MTE. Similar reasoning
> > for mremap(), at least on the new_address argument (not entirely sure
> > about old_address).
> >
> > munmap() should probably follow the mmap() rules.
> >
> > As for brk(), I don't see why the user would need to pass a tagged
> > address, we can't associate any meaning to this tag.
> >
> > For the rest, since it's likely such addresses would have been tagged by
> > malloc() in user space, we should allow tagged pointers.
>
> Those arguments seem reasonable. We should try to capture this
> somewhere when documenting the ABI.
>
> To be clear, I'm not sure that we should guarantee anywhere that a
> tagged pointer is rejected: rather the behaviour should probably be
> left unspecified. Then we can tidy it up incrementally.
>
> (The behaviour is unspecified today, in any case.)
What is specified (or rather de-facto ABI) today is that passing a user
address above TASK_SIZE (e.g. non-zero top byte) would fail in most
cases. If we relax this with the TBI we may end up with some de-facto
ABI before we actually get MTE hardware. Tightening it afterwards may be
slightly more problematic, although MTE needs to be an explicit opt-in.
IOW, I wouldn't want to unnecessarily relax the ABI if we don't need to.
--
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:[~2019-05-29 13:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 558+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-05-06 16:30 [PATCH v15 00/17] arm64: untag user pointers passed to the kernel Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-06 16:30 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-06 16:30 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-06 16:30 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-06 16:30 ` andreyknvl
2019-05-06 16:30 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-06 16:30 ` [PATCH v15 01/17] uaccess: add untagged_addr definition for other arches Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-06 16:30 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-06 16:30 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-06 16:30 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-06 16:30 ` andreyknvl
2019-05-06 16:30 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-29 14:49 ` Khalid Aziz
2019-05-29 14:49 ` Khalid Aziz
2019-05-29 14:49 ` Khalid Aziz
2019-05-29 14:49 ` khalid.aziz
2019-05-29 14:49 ` Khalid Aziz
2019-05-06 16:30 ` [PATCH v15 02/17] arm64: untag user pointers in access_ok and __uaccess_mask_ptr Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-06 16:30 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-06 16:30 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-06 16:30 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-06 16:30 ` andreyknvl
2019-05-06 16:30 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-06 16:30 ` [PATCH v15 03/17] lib, arm64: untag user pointers in strn*_user Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-06 16:30 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-06 16:30 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-06 16:30 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-06 16:30 ` andreyknvl
2019-05-06 16:30 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-22 10:41 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-22 10:41 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-22 10:41 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-22 10:41 ` catalin.marinas
2019-05-22 10:41 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-06 16:30 ` [PATCH v15 04/17] mm: add ksys_ wrappers to memory syscalls Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-06 16:30 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-06 16:30 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-06 16:30 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-06 16:30 ` andreyknvl
2019-05-06 16:30 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-22 10:56 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-22 10:56 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-22 10:56 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-22 10:56 ` catalin.marinas
2019-05-22 10:56 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-06 16:30 ` [PATCH v15 05/17] arms64: untag user pointers passed " Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-06 16:30 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-06 16:30 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-06 16:30 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-06 16:30 ` andreyknvl
2019-05-06 16:30 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-22 11:49 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-22 11:49 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-22 11:49 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-22 11:49 ` catalin.marinas
2019-05-22 11:49 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-22 21:16 ` Evgenii Stepanov
2019-05-22 21:16 ` Evgenii Stepanov
2019-05-22 21:16 ` Evgenii Stepanov
2019-05-22 21:16 ` Evgenii Stepanov
2019-05-22 21:16 ` eugenis
2019-05-22 21:16 ` Evgenii Stepanov
2019-05-23 9:04 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-23 9:04 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-23 9:04 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-23 9:04 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-23 9:04 ` catalin.marinas
2019-05-23 9:04 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-24 4:23 ` Evgenii Stepanov
2019-05-24 4:23 ` Evgenii Stepanov
2019-05-24 4:23 ` Evgenii Stepanov
2019-05-24 4:23 ` Evgenii Stepanov
2019-05-24 4:23 ` eugenis
2019-05-24 4:23 ` Evgenii Stepanov
2019-05-24 15:41 ` Andrew Murray
2019-05-24 15:41 ` Andrew Murray
2019-05-24 15:41 ` Andrew Murray
2019-05-24 15:41 ` andrew.murray
2019-05-24 15:41 ` Andrew Murray
2019-05-25 9:57 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-25 9:57 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-25 9:57 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-25 9:57 ` catalin.marinas
2019-05-25 9:57 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-27 9:42 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-27 9:42 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-27 9:42 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-27 9:42 ` catalin.marinas
2019-05-27 9:42 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-27 14:37 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-27 14:37 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-27 14:37 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-27 14:37 ` catalin.marinas
2019-05-27 14:37 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-28 14:54 ` Andrew Murray
2019-05-28 14:54 ` Andrew Murray
2019-05-28 14:54 ` Andrew Murray
2019-05-28 14:54 ` andrew.murray
2019-05-28 14:54 ` Andrew Murray
2019-05-28 15:40 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-28 15:40 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-28 15:40 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-28 15:40 ` catalin.marinas
2019-05-28 15:40 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-28 15:56 ` Dave Martin
2019-05-28 15:56 ` Dave Martin
2019-05-28 15:56 ` Dave Martin
2019-05-28 15:56 ` Dave.Martin
2019-05-28 15:56 ` Dave Martin
2019-05-28 16:34 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-28 16:34 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-28 16:34 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-28 16:34 ` catalin.marinas
2019-05-28 16:34 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-29 12:42 ` Dave Martin
2019-05-29 12:42 ` Dave Martin
2019-05-29 12:42 ` Dave Martin
2019-05-29 12:42 ` Dave.Martin
2019-05-29 12:42 ` Dave Martin
2019-05-29 13:23 ` Catalin Marinas [this message]
2019-05-29 13:23 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-29 13:23 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-29 13:23 ` catalin.marinas
2019-05-29 13:23 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-29 15:18 ` Dave Martin
2019-05-29 15:18 ` Dave Martin
2019-05-29 15:18 ` Dave Martin
2019-05-29 15:18 ` Dave.Martin
2019-05-29 15:18 ` Dave Martin
2019-05-28 23:33 ` Khalid Aziz
2019-05-28 23:33 ` Khalid Aziz
2019-05-28 23:33 ` Khalid Aziz
2019-05-28 23:33 ` khalid.aziz
2019-05-28 23:33 ` Khalid Aziz
2019-05-29 14:20 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-29 14:20 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-29 14:20 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-29 14:20 ` catalin.marinas
2019-05-29 14:20 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-29 19:16 ` Khalid Aziz
2019-05-29 19:16 ` Khalid Aziz
2019-05-29 19:16 ` Khalid Aziz
2019-05-29 19:16 ` khalid.aziz
2019-05-29 19:16 ` Khalid Aziz
2019-05-30 15:11 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-30 15:11 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-30 15:11 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-30 15:11 ` catalin.marinas
2019-05-30 15:11 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-30 16:05 ` Khalid Aziz
2019-05-30 16:05 ` Khalid Aziz
2019-05-30 16:05 ` Khalid Aziz
2019-05-30 16:05 ` khalid.aziz
2019-05-30 16:05 ` Khalid Aziz
2019-05-30 16:57 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-30 16:57 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-30 16:57 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-30 16:57 ` catalin.marinas
2019-05-30 16:57 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-28 13:05 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-28 13:05 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-28 13:05 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-28 13:05 ` catalin.marinas
2019-05-28 13:05 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-06 16:30 ` [PATCH v15 06/17] mm: untag user pointers in do_pages_move Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-06 16:30 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-06 16:30 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-06 16:30 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-06 16:30 ` andreyknvl
2019-05-06 16:30 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-22 11:51 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-22 11:51 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-22 11:51 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-22 11:51 ` catalin.marinas
2019-05-22 11:51 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-06 16:30 ` [PATCH v15 07/17] mm, arm64: untag user pointers in mm/gup.c Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-06 16:30 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-06 16:30 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-06 16:30 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-06 16:30 ` andreyknvl
2019-05-06 16:30 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-22 11:56 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-22 11:56 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-22 11:56 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-22 11:56 ` catalin.marinas
2019-05-22 11:56 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-06 16:30 ` [PATCH v15 08/17] mm, arm64: untag user pointers in get_vaddr_frames Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-06 16:30 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-06 16:30 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-06 16:30 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-06 16:30 ` andreyknvl
2019-05-06 16:30 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-06 16:30 ` [PATCH v15 09/17] fs, arm64: untag user pointers in copy_mount_options Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-06 16:30 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-06 16:30 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-06 16:30 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-06 16:30 ` andreyknvl
2019-05-06 16:30 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-22 12:09 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-22 12:09 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-22 12:09 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-22 12:09 ` catalin.marinas
2019-05-22 12:09 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-06 16:30 ` [PATCH v15 10/17] fs, arm64: untag user pointers in fs/userfaultfd.c Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-06 16:30 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-06 16:30 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-06 16:30 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-06 16:30 ` andreyknvl
2019-05-06 16:30 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-06 16:30 ` [PATCH v15 11/17] drm/amdgpu, arm64: untag user pointers Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-06 16:30 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-06 16:30 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-06 16:30 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-06 16:30 ` andreyknvl
2019-05-06 16:30 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-07 16:43 ` Kuehling, Felix
2019-05-07 16:43 ` Kuehling, Felix
2019-05-07 16:43 ` Kuehling, Felix
2019-05-07 16:43 ` Kuehling, Felix
2019-05-07 16:43 ` Felix.Kuehling
2019-05-07 16:43 ` Kuehling, Felix
2019-05-06 16:30 ` [PATCH v15 12/17] drm/radeon, arm64: untag user pointers in radeon_gem_userptr_ioctl Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-06 16:30 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-06 16:30 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-06 16:30 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-06 16:30 ` andreyknvl
2019-05-06 16:30 ` Andrey Konovalov
[not found] ` <03fe9d923db75cf72678f3ce103838e67390751a.1557160186.git.andreyknvl-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
2019-05-07 16:44 ` Kuehling, Felix
2019-05-07 16:44 ` Kuehling, Felix
2019-05-07 16:44 ` Kuehling, Felix
2019-05-07 16:44 ` Kuehling, Felix
2019-05-07 16:44 ` Felix.Kuehling
2019-05-07 16:44 ` Kuehling, Felix
2019-05-06 16:30 ` [PATCH v15 13/17] IB, arm64: untag user pointers in ib_uverbs_(re)reg_mr() Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-06 16:30 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-06 16:30 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-06 16:30 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-06 16:30 ` andreyknvl
2019-05-06 16:30 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-06 19:50 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-05-06 19:50 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-05-06 19:50 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-05-06 19:50 ` jgg
2019-05-06 19:50 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-05-07 6:33 ` Leon Romanovsky
2019-05-07 6:33 ` Leon Romanovsky
2019-05-07 6:33 ` Leon Romanovsky
2019-05-07 6:33 ` leon
2019-05-07 6:33 ` Leon Romanovsky
2019-05-06 16:31 ` [PATCH v15 14/17] media/v4l2-core, arm64: untag user pointers in videobuf_dma_contig_user_get Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-06 16:31 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-06 16:31 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-06 16:31 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-06 16:31 ` andreyknvl
2019-05-06 16:31 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-24 13:13 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2019-05-24 13:13 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2019-05-24 13:13 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2019-05-24 13:13 ` mchehab+samsung
2019-05-24 13:13 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2019-05-06 16:31 ` [PATCH v15 15/17] tee, arm64: untag user pointers in tee_shm_register Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-06 16:31 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-06 16:31 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-06 16:31 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-06 16:31 ` andreyknvl
2019-05-06 16:31 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-06 16:31 ` [PATCH v15 16/17] vfio/type1, arm64: untag user pointers in vaddr_get_pfn Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-06 16:31 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-06 16:31 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-06 16:31 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-06 16:31 ` andreyknvl
2019-05-06 16:31 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-06 16:31 ` [PATCH v15 17/17] selftests, arm64: add a selftest for passing tagged pointers to kernel Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-06 16:31 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-06 16:31 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-06 16:31 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-06 16:31 ` andreyknvl
2019-05-06 16:31 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-22 14:16 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-22 14:16 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-22 14:16 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-22 14:16 ` catalin.marinas
2019-05-22 14:16 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-31 14:21 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-31 14:21 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-31 14:21 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-31 14:21 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-31 14:21 ` andreyknvl
2019-05-31 14:21 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-31 16:22 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-31 16:22 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-31 16:22 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-31 16:22 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-31 16:22 ` catalin.marinas
2019-05-31 16:22 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-17 14:49 ` [PATCH v15 00/17] arm64: untag user pointers passed to the kernel Catalin Marinas
2019-05-17 14:49 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-17 14:49 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-17 14:49 ` catalin.marinas
2019-05-17 14:49 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-20 23:53 ` Evgenii Stepanov
2019-05-20 23:53 ` Evgenii Stepanov
2019-05-20 23:53 ` Evgenii Stepanov
2019-05-20 23:53 ` Evgenii Stepanov
2019-05-20 23:53 ` eugenis
2019-05-20 23:53 ` Evgenii Stepanov
2019-05-21 18:29 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-21 18:29 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-21 18:29 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-21 18:29 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-21 18:29 ` catalin.marinas
2019-05-21 18:29 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-22 0:04 ` Kees Cook
2019-05-22 0:04 ` Kees Cook
2019-05-22 0:04 ` Kees Cook
2019-05-22 0:04 ` Kees Cook
2019-05-22 0:04 ` keescook
2019-05-22 0:04 ` Kees Cook
2019-05-22 10:11 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-22 10:11 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-22 10:11 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-22 10:11 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-22 10:11 ` catalin.marinas
2019-05-22 10:11 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-22 15:30 ` enh
2019-05-22 15:30 ` enh
2019-05-22 15:30 ` enh
2019-05-22 15:30 ` enh
2019-05-22 15:30 ` enh
2019-05-22 15:30 ` enh
2019-05-22 16:35 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-22 16:35 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-22 16:35 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-22 16:35 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-22 16:35 ` catalin.marinas
2019-05-22 16:35 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-22 16:58 ` enh
2019-05-22 16:58 ` enh
2019-05-22 16:58 ` enh
2019-05-22 16:58 ` enh
2019-05-22 16:58 ` enh
2019-05-22 16:58 ` enh
2019-05-23 15:21 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-23 15:21 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-23 15:21 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-23 15:21 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-23 15:21 ` catalin.marinas
2019-05-23 15:21 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-22 20:47 ` Kees Cook
2019-05-22 20:47 ` Kees Cook
2019-05-22 20:47 ` Kees Cook
2019-05-22 20:47 ` Kees Cook
2019-05-22 20:47 ` keescook
2019-05-22 20:47 ` Kees Cook
2019-05-22 23:03 ` Evgenii Stepanov
2019-05-22 23:03 ` Evgenii Stepanov
2019-05-22 23:03 ` Evgenii Stepanov
2019-05-22 23:03 ` Evgenii Stepanov
2019-05-22 23:03 ` eugenis
2019-05-22 23:03 ` Evgenii Stepanov
2019-05-22 23:09 ` enh
2019-05-22 23:09 ` enh
2019-05-22 23:09 ` enh
2019-05-22 23:09 ` enh
2019-05-22 23:09 ` enh
2019-05-22 23:09 ` enh
2019-05-23 7:34 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-23 7:34 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-23 7:34 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-23 7:34 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-23 7:34 ` catalin.marinas
2019-05-23 7:34 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-23 14:44 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-23 14:44 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-23 14:44 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-23 14:44 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-23 14:44 ` catalin.marinas
2019-05-23 14:44 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-23 15:44 ` enh
2019-05-23 15:44 ` enh
2019-05-23 15:44 ` enh
2019-05-23 15:44 ` enh
2019-05-23 15:44 ` enh
2019-05-23 15:44 ` enh
2019-05-23 17:00 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-23 17:00 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-23 17:00 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-23 17:00 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-23 17:00 ` catalin.marinas
2019-05-23 17:00 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-23 16:38 ` Kees Cook
2019-05-23 16:38 ` Kees Cook
2019-05-23 16:38 ` Kees Cook
2019-05-23 16:38 ` Kees Cook
2019-05-23 16:38 ` keescook
2019-05-23 16:38 ` Kees Cook
2019-05-23 17:43 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-23 17:43 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-23 17:43 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-23 17:43 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-23 17:43 ` catalin.marinas
2019-05-23 17:43 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-23 21:31 ` Kees Cook
2019-05-23 21:31 ` Kees Cook
2019-05-23 21:31 ` Kees Cook
2019-05-23 21:31 ` Kees Cook
2019-05-23 21:31 ` keescook
2019-05-23 21:31 ` Kees Cook
2019-05-24 11:20 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-24 11:20 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-24 11:20 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-24 11:20 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-24 11:20 ` catalin.marinas
2019-05-24 11:20 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-28 17:02 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-28 17:02 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-28 17:02 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-28 17:02 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-28 17:02 ` catalin.marinas
2019-05-28 17:02 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-06-02 5:06 ` Kees Cook
2019-06-02 5:06 ` Kees Cook
2019-06-02 5:06 ` Kees Cook
2019-06-02 5:06 ` Kees Cook
2019-06-02 5:06 ` keescook
2019-06-02 5:06 ` Kees Cook
2019-05-22 19:21 ` Kees Cook
2019-05-22 19:21 ` Kees Cook
2019-05-22 19:21 ` Kees Cook
2019-05-22 19:21 ` Kees Cook
2019-05-22 19:21 ` keescook
2019-05-22 19:21 ` Kees Cook
2019-05-22 20:15 ` enh
2019-05-22 20:15 ` enh
2019-05-22 20:15 ` enh
2019-05-22 20:15 ` enh
2019-05-22 20:15 ` enh
2019-05-22 20:15 ` enh
2019-05-23 15:08 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-23 15:08 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-23 15:08 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-23 15:08 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-23 15:08 ` catalin.marinas
2019-05-23 15:08 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-23 17:51 ` Khalid Aziz
2019-05-23 17:51 ` Khalid Aziz
2019-05-23 17:51 ` Khalid Aziz
2019-05-23 17:51 ` Khalid Aziz
2019-05-23 17:51 ` khalid.aziz
2019-05-23 17:51 ` Khalid Aziz
2019-05-23 20:11 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-23 20:11 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-23 20:11 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-23 20:11 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-23 20:11 ` catalin.marinas
2019-05-23 20:11 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-23 21:42 ` Khalid Aziz
2019-05-23 21:42 ` Khalid Aziz
2019-05-23 21:42 ` Khalid Aziz
2019-05-23 21:42 ` Khalid Aziz
2019-05-23 21:42 ` khalid.aziz
2019-05-23 21:42 ` Khalid Aziz
2019-05-23 21:49 ` Khalid Aziz
2019-05-23 21:49 ` Khalid Aziz
2019-05-23 21:49 ` Khalid Aziz
2019-05-23 21:49 ` Khalid Aziz
2019-05-23 21:49 ` khalid.aziz
2019-05-23 21:49 ` Khalid Aziz
2019-05-24 10:11 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-24 10:11 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-24 10:11 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-24 10:11 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-24 10:11 ` catalin.marinas
2019-05-24 10:11 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-24 14:25 ` Khalid Aziz
2019-05-24 14:25 ` Khalid Aziz
2019-05-24 14:25 ` Khalid Aziz
2019-05-24 14:25 ` Khalid Aziz
2019-05-24 14:25 ` khalid.aziz
2019-05-24 14:25 ` Khalid Aziz
2019-05-28 14:14 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-28 14:14 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-28 14:14 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-28 14:14 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-28 14:14 ` andreyknvl
2019-05-28 14:14 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-29 6:11 ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-05-29 6:11 ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-05-29 6:11 ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-05-29 6:11 ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-05-29 6:11 ` hch
2019-05-29 6:11 ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-05-29 12:12 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-29 12:12 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-29 12:12 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-29 12:12 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-29 12:12 ` catalin.marinas
2019-05-29 12:12 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-30 17:15 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-30 17:15 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-30 17:15 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-30 17:15 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-30 17:15 ` catalin.marinas
2019-05-30 17:15 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-31 14:29 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-31 14:29 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-31 14:29 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-31 14:29 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-31 14:29 ` andreyknvl
2019-05-31 14:29 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-31 16:19 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-31 16:19 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-31 16:19 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-31 16:19 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-31 16:19 ` catalin.marinas
2019-05-31 16:19 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-31 16:24 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-31 16:24 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-31 16:24 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-31 16:24 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-31 16:24 ` andreyknvl
2019-05-31 16:24 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-31 16:46 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-31 16:46 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-31 16:46 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-31 16:46 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-31 16:46 ` catalin.marinas
2019-05-31 16:46 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-21 18:48 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-05-21 18:48 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-05-21 18:48 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-05-21 18:48 ` jgg
2019-05-21 18:48 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-05-22 13:49 ` Dave Martin
2019-05-22 13:49 ` Dave Martin
2019-05-22 13:49 ` Dave Martin
2019-05-22 13:49 ` Dave.Martin
2019-05-22 13:49 ` Dave Martin
2019-05-23 0:20 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-05-23 0:20 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-05-23 0:20 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-05-23 0:20 ` jgg
2019-05-23 0:20 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-05-23 10:42 ` Dave Martin
2019-05-23 10:42 ` Dave Martin
2019-05-23 10:42 ` Dave Martin
2019-05-23 10:42 ` Dave.Martin
2019-05-23 10:42 ` Dave Martin
2019-05-23 16:57 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-23 16:57 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-23 16:57 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-23 16:57 ` catalin.marinas
2019-05-23 16:57 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-05-24 14:23 ` Dave Martin
2019-05-24 14:23 ` Dave Martin
2019-05-24 14:23 ` Dave Martin
2019-05-24 14:23 ` Dave.Martin
2019-05-24 14:23 ` Dave Martin
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=20190529132341.27t3knoxpb7t7y3g@mbp \
--to=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=Dave.Martin@arm.com \
--cc=Jacob.Bramley@arm.com \
--cc=Ramana.Radhakrishnan@arm.com \
--cc=Ruben.Ayrapetyan@arm.com \
--cc=Szabolcs.Nagy@arm.com \
--cc=alex.williamson@redhat.com \
--cc=amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=andreyknvl@google.com \
--cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=dvyukov@google.com \
--cc=eugenis@google.com \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=kevin.brodsky@arm.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=leon@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-media@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=vincenzo.frascino@arm.com \
--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.