From: Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@google.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
Kate Stewart <kstewart@linuxfoundation.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@arm.com>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
"open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
"open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK"
<linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>,
Kostya Serebryany <kcc@google.com>,
Evgeniy Stepanov <eugenis@google.com>,
Lee Smith <Lee.Smith@arm.com>,
Ramana Radhakrishnan <Ramana.Radhakrishnan@arm.com>,
Jacob Bramley <Jacob.Bramley@arm.com>,
Ruben Ayrapetyan <Ruben.Ayrapetyan@arm.com>,
Chintan Pandya <cpandya@codeaurora.org>,
Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com>,
Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com>,
Kevin Brodsky <kevin.brodsky@arm.com>,
Szabolcs Nagy <Szabolcs.Nagy@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 06/12] fs, arm64: untag user pointers in copy_mount_options
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2019 15:35:40 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAAeHK+wLm7zSUC8dJv3LgdyvpkBN8u_24ene6b91PgM570VWbQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <a38275b0-f6cd-20e1-3c48-544846586a16@intel.com>
On Sat, Feb 23, 2019 at 12:03 AM Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com> wrote:
>
> On 2/22/19 4:53 AM, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
> > --- a/fs/namespace.c
> > +++ b/fs/namespace.c
> > @@ -2730,7 +2730,7 @@ void *copy_mount_options(const void __user * data)
> > * the remainder of the page.
> > */
> > /* copy_from_user cannot cross TASK_SIZE ! */
> > - size = TASK_SIZE - (unsigned long)data;
> > + size = TASK_SIZE - (unsigned long)untagged_addr(data);
> > if (size > PAGE_SIZE)
> > size = PAGE_SIZE;
>
> I would have thought that copy_from_user() *is* entirely capable of
> detecting and returning an error in the case that its arguments cross
> TASK_SIZE. It will fail and return an error, but that's what it's
> supposed to do.
>
> I'd question why this code needs to be doing its own checking in the
> first place. Is there something subtle going on?
The comment above exact_copy_from_user() states:
Some copy_from_user() implementations do not return the exact number of
bytes remaining to copy on a fault. But copy_mount_options() requires that.
Note that this function differs from copy_from_user() in that it will oops
on bad values of `to', rather than returning a short copy.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: andreyknvl at google.com (Andrey Konovalov)
Subject: [PATCH v10 06/12] fs, arm64: untag user pointers in copy_mount_options
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2019 15:35:40 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAAeHK+wLm7zSUC8dJv3LgdyvpkBN8u_24ene6b91PgM570VWbQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <a38275b0-f6cd-20e1-3c48-544846586a16@intel.com>
On Sat, Feb 23, 2019 at 12:03 AM Dave Hansen <dave.hansen at intel.com> wrote:
>
> On 2/22/19 4:53 AM, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
> > --- a/fs/namespace.c
> > +++ b/fs/namespace.c
> > @@ -2730,7 +2730,7 @@ void *copy_mount_options(const void __user * data)
> > * the remainder of the page.
> > */
> > /* copy_from_user cannot cross TASK_SIZE ! */
> > - size = TASK_SIZE - (unsigned long)data;
> > + size = TASK_SIZE - (unsigned long)untagged_addr(data);
> > if (size > PAGE_SIZE)
> > size = PAGE_SIZE;
>
> I would have thought that copy_from_user() *is* entirely capable of
> detecting and returning an error in the case that its arguments cross
> TASK_SIZE. It will fail and return an error, but that's what it's
> supposed to do.
>
> I'd question why this code needs to be doing its own checking in the
> first place. Is there something subtle going on?
The comment above exact_copy_from_user() states:
Some copy_from_user() implementations do not return the exact number of
bytes remaining to copy on a fault. But copy_mount_options() requires that.
Note that this function differs from copy_from_user() in that it will oops
on bad values of `to', rather than returning a short copy.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: andreyknvl@google.com (Andrey Konovalov)
Subject: [PATCH v10 06/12] fs, arm64: untag user pointers in copy_mount_options
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2019 15:35:40 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAAeHK+wLm7zSUC8dJv3LgdyvpkBN8u_24ene6b91PgM570VWbQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
Message-ID: <20190226143540.4d1irnoFAYKMY0OdfiSfxmOHenovVJWoY9JwiWNB7OQ@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <a38275b0-f6cd-20e1-3c48-544846586a16@intel.com>
On Sat, Feb 23, 2019@12:03 AM Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com> wrote:
>
> On 2/22/19 4:53 AM, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
> > --- a/fs/namespace.c
> > +++ b/fs/namespace.c
> > @@ -2730,7 +2730,7 @@ void *copy_mount_options(const void __user * data)
> > * the remainder of the page.
> > */
> > /* copy_from_user cannot cross TASK_SIZE ! */
> > - size = TASK_SIZE - (unsigned long)data;
> > + size = TASK_SIZE - (unsigned long)untagged_addr(data);
> > if (size > PAGE_SIZE)
> > size = PAGE_SIZE;
>
> I would have thought that copy_from_user() *is* entirely capable of
> detecting and returning an error in the case that its arguments cross
> TASK_SIZE. It will fail and return an error, but that's what it's
> supposed to do.
>
> I'd question why this code needs to be doing its own checking in the
> first place. Is there something subtle going on?
The comment above exact_copy_from_user() states:
Some copy_from_user() implementations do not return the exact number of
bytes remaining to copy on a fault. But copy_mount_options() requires that.
Note that this function differs from copy_from_user() in that it will oops
on bad values of `to', rather than returning a short copy.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@google.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
Kate Stewart <kstewart@linuxfoundation.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@arm.com>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
"open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
"open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK"
<linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 06/12] fs, arm64: untag user pointers in copy_mount_options
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2019 15:35:40 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAAeHK+wLm7zSUC8dJv3LgdyvpkBN8u_24ene6b91PgM570VWbQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <a38275b0-f6cd-20e1-3c48-544846586a16@intel.com>
On Sat, Feb 23, 2019 at 12:03 AM Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com> wrote:
>
> On 2/22/19 4:53 AM, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
> > --- a/fs/namespace.c
> > +++ b/fs/namespace.c
> > @@ -2730,7 +2730,7 @@ void *copy_mount_options(const void __user * data)
> > * the remainder of the page.
> > */
> > /* copy_from_user cannot cross TASK_SIZE ! */
> > - size = TASK_SIZE - (unsigned long)data;
> > + size = TASK_SIZE - (unsigned long)untagged_addr(data);
> > if (size > PAGE_SIZE)
> > size = PAGE_SIZE;
>
> I would have thought that copy_from_user() *is* entirely capable of
> detecting and returning an error in the case that its arguments cross
> TASK_SIZE. It will fail and return an error, but that's what it's
> supposed to do.
>
> I'd question why this code needs to be doing its own checking in the
> first place. Is there something subtle going on?
The comment above exact_copy_from_user() states:
Some copy_from_user() implementations do not return the exact number of
bytes remaining to copy on a fault. But copy_mount_options() requires that.
Note that this function differs from copy_from_user() in that it will oops
on bad values of `to', rather than returning a short copy.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@google.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
Kate Stewart <kstewart@linuxfoundation.org>,
"open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
Szabolcs Nagy <Szabolcs.Nagy@arm.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
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>,
Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@arm.com>,
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>,
Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com>,
Evgeniy Stepanov <eugenis@google.com>,
Kevin Brodsky <kevin.brodsky@arm.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 v10 06/12] fs, arm64: untag user pointers in copy_mount_options
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2019 15:35:40 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAAeHK+wLm7zSUC8dJv3LgdyvpkBN8u_24ene6b91PgM570VWbQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <a38275b0-f6cd-20e1-3c48-544846586a16@intel.com>
On Sat, Feb 23, 2019 at 12:03 AM Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com> wrote:
>
> On 2/22/19 4:53 AM, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
> > --- a/fs/namespace.c
> > +++ b/fs/namespace.c
> > @@ -2730,7 +2730,7 @@ void *copy_mount_options(const void __user * data)
> > * the remainder of the page.
> > */
> > /* copy_from_user cannot cross TASK_SIZE ! */
> > - size = TASK_SIZE - (unsigned long)data;
> > + size = TASK_SIZE - (unsigned long)untagged_addr(data);
> > if (size > PAGE_SIZE)
> > size = PAGE_SIZE;
>
> I would have thought that copy_from_user() *is* entirely capable of
> detecting and returning an error in the case that its arguments cross
> TASK_SIZE. It will fail and return an error, but that's what it's
> supposed to do.
>
> I'd question why this code needs to be doing its own checking in the
> first place. Is there something subtle going on?
The comment above exact_copy_from_user() states:
Some copy_from_user() implementations do not return the exact number of
bytes remaining to copy on a fault. But copy_mount_options() requires that.
Note that this function differs from copy_from_user() in that it will oops
on bad values of `to', rather than returning a short copy.
_______________________________________________
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:[~2019-02-26 14:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 155+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-02-22 12:53 [PATCH v10 00/12] arm64: untag user pointers passed to the kernel Andrey Konovalov
2019-02-22 12:53 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-02-22 12:53 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-02-22 12:53 ` andreyknvl
2019-02-22 12:53 ` [PATCH v10 01/12] uaccess: add untagged_addr definition for other arches Andrey Konovalov
2019-02-22 12:53 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-02-22 12:53 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-02-22 12:53 ` andreyknvl
2019-02-22 12:53 ` [PATCH v10 02/12] arm64: untag user pointers in access_ok and __uaccess_mask_ptr Andrey Konovalov
2019-02-22 12:53 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-02-22 12:53 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-02-22 12:53 ` andreyknvl
2019-02-22 12:53 ` [PATCH v10 03/12] lib, arm64: untag user pointers in strn*_user Andrey Konovalov
2019-02-22 12:53 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-02-22 12:53 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-02-22 12:53 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-02-22 12:53 ` andreyknvl
2019-02-22 12:53 ` [PATCH v10 04/12] mm, arm64: untag user pointers passed to memory syscalls Andrey Konovalov
2019-02-22 12:53 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-02-22 12:53 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-02-22 12:53 ` andreyknvl
2019-02-22 23:07 ` Dave Hansen
2019-02-22 23:07 ` Dave Hansen
2019-02-22 23:07 ` Dave Hansen
2019-02-22 23:07 ` dave.hansen
2019-02-26 14:41 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-02-26 14:41 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-02-26 14:41 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-02-26 14:41 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-02-26 14:41 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-02-26 14:41 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-02-26 14:41 ` andreyknvl
2019-02-22 12:53 ` [PATCH v10 05/12] mm, arm64: untag user pointers in mm/gup.c Andrey Konovalov
2019-02-22 12:53 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-02-22 12:53 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-02-22 12:53 ` andreyknvl
2019-02-22 12:53 ` [PATCH v10 06/12] fs, arm64: untag user pointers in copy_mount_options Andrey Konovalov
2019-02-22 12:53 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-02-22 12:53 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-02-22 12:53 ` andreyknvl
2019-02-22 23:03 ` Dave Hansen
2019-02-22 23:03 ` Dave Hansen
2019-02-22 23:03 ` Dave Hansen
2019-02-22 23:03 ` dave.hansen
2019-02-26 14:35 ` Andrey Konovalov [this message]
2019-02-26 14:35 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-02-26 14:35 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-02-26 14:35 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-02-26 14:35 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-02-26 14:35 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-02-26 14:35 ` andreyknvl
2019-02-22 12:53 ` [PATCH v10 07/12] fs, arm64: untag user pointers in fs/userfaultfd.c Andrey Konovalov
2019-02-22 12:53 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-02-22 12:53 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-02-22 12:53 ` andreyknvl
2019-02-22 23:05 ` Dave Hansen
2019-02-22 23:05 ` Dave Hansen
2019-02-22 23:05 ` Dave Hansen
2019-02-22 23:05 ` dave.hansen
2019-02-26 14:39 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-02-26 14:39 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-02-26 14:39 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-02-26 14:39 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-02-26 14:39 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-02-26 14:39 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-02-26 14:39 ` andreyknvl
2019-03-01 16:59 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-03-01 16:59 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-03-01 16:59 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-03-01 16:59 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-03-01 16:59 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-03-01 16:59 ` catalin.marinas
2019-03-01 18:37 ` Dave Hansen
2019-03-01 18:37 ` Dave Hansen
2019-03-01 18:37 ` Dave Hansen
2019-03-01 18:37 ` Dave Hansen
2019-03-01 18:37 ` Dave Hansen
2019-03-01 18:37 ` dave.hansen
2019-03-05 17:47 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-03-05 17:47 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-03-05 17:47 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-03-05 17:47 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-03-05 17:47 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-03-05 17:47 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-03-05 17:47 ` andreyknvl
2019-02-22 12:53 ` [PATCH v10 08/12] net, arm64: untag user pointers in tcp_zerocopy_receive Andrey Konovalov
2019-02-22 12:53 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-02-22 12:53 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-02-22 12:53 ` andreyknvl
2019-02-22 12:53 ` [PATCH v10 09/12] kernel, arm64: untag user pointers in prctl_set_mm* Andrey Konovalov
2019-02-22 12:53 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-02-22 12:53 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-02-22 12:53 ` andreyknvl
2019-02-22 12:53 ` [PATCH v10 10/12] tracing, arm64: untag user pointers in seq_print_user_ip Andrey Konovalov
2019-02-22 12:53 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-02-22 12:53 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-02-22 12:53 ` andreyknvl
2019-02-22 12:53 ` [PATCH v10 11/12] arm64: update Documentation/arm64/tagged-pointers.txt Andrey Konovalov
2019-02-22 12:53 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-02-22 12:53 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-02-22 12:53 ` andreyknvl
2019-02-22 12:53 ` [PATCH v10 12/12] selftests, arm64: add a selftest for passing tagged pointers to kernel Andrey Konovalov
2019-02-22 12:53 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-02-22 12:53 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-02-22 12:53 ` andreyknvl
2019-02-22 15:35 ` [PATCH v10 00/12] arm64: untag user pointers passed to the kernel Szabolcs Nagy
2019-02-22 15:35 ` Szabolcs Nagy
2019-02-22 15:35 ` Szabolcs Nagy
2019-02-22 15:35 ` Szabolcs Nagy
2019-02-22 15:35 ` Szabolcs Nagy
2019-02-22 15:35 ` Szabolcs Nagy
2019-02-22 15:35 ` Szabolcs.Nagy
2019-02-22 15:40 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-02-22 15:40 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-02-22 15:40 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-02-22 15:40 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-02-22 15:40 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-02-22 15:40 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-02-22 15:40 ` andreyknvl
2019-02-22 16:10 ` Szabolcs Nagy
2019-02-22 16:10 ` Szabolcs Nagy
2019-02-22 16:10 ` Szabolcs Nagy
2019-02-22 16:10 ` Szabolcs Nagy
2019-02-22 16:10 ` Szabolcs Nagy
2019-02-22 16:10 ` Szabolcs.Nagy
2019-02-26 17:00 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-02-26 17:00 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-02-26 17:00 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-02-26 17:00 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-02-26 17:00 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-02-26 17:00 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-02-26 17:00 ` andreyknvl
2019-02-22 22:54 ` Dave Hansen
2019-02-22 22:54 ` Dave Hansen
2019-02-22 22:54 ` Dave Hansen
2019-02-22 22:54 ` dave.hansen
2019-02-26 17:18 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-02-26 17:18 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-02-26 17:18 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-02-26 17:18 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-02-26 17:18 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-02-26 17:18 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-02-26 17:18 ` andreyknvl
2019-02-26 17:35 ` Dave Hansen
2019-02-26 17:35 ` Dave Hansen
2019-02-26 17:35 ` Dave Hansen
2019-02-26 17:35 ` Dave Hansen
2019-02-26 17:35 ` Dave Hansen
2019-02-26 17:35 ` dave.hansen
2019-02-26 23:17 ` Luc Van Oostenryck
2019-02-26 23:17 ` Luc Van Oostenryck
2019-02-26 23:17 ` Luc Van Oostenryck
2019-02-26 23:17 ` Luc Van Oostenryck
2019-02-26 23:17 ` Luc Van Oostenryck
2019-02-26 23:17 ` luc.vanoostenryck
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=CAAeHK+wLm7zSUC8dJv3LgdyvpkBN8u_24ene6b91PgM570VWbQ@mail.gmail.com \
--to=andreyknvl@google.com \
--cc=Dave.Martin@arm.com \
--cc=Jacob.Bramley@arm.com \
--cc=Lee.Smith@arm.com \
--cc=Ramana.Radhakrishnan@arm.com \
--cc=Ruben.Ayrapetyan@arm.com \
--cc=Szabolcs.Nagy@arm.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=cpandya@codeaurora.org \
--cc=dave.hansen@intel.com \
--cc=dvyukov@google.com \
--cc=eugenis@google.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=kcc@google.com \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=kevin.brodsky@arm.com \
--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=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.