From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: catalin.marinas@arm.com (Catalin Marinas) Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2016 16:19:19 +0000 Subject: [PATCH v5sub2 0/8] arm64: implement virtual KASLR In-Reply-To: References: <1454332178-4414-1-git-send-email-ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> <20160205173248.GJ6076@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20160208121430.GL6076@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> Message-ID: <20160208161918.GT6076@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 03:30:47PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On 8 February 2016 at 13:14, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 12:42:30PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote: > >> On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 9:38 AM, Ard Biesheuvel > >> wrote: > >> > On 5 February 2016 at 18:32, Catalin Marinas wrote: > >> >> I'm still trying to get my head around how we merge those. Since I > >> >> assume akpm will push them during the merging window, part of your code > >> >> cannot be tested before. > >> > > >> > Actually, my original idea was for akpm to take them as a late merge > >> > after rebasing to -rc1, since they touch a variety of architectures, > >> > but I am not sure if that came across. > >> > > >> > You could always take the series through your tree instead, I guess? > >> > >> Traditionally akpm will de-duplicate patches he's carrying that appear > >> in another tree. I think it should be okay to carry them in both > >> places. (Though I'm CCing akpm just to see if I'm talking crazy.) > > > > For now, I'll merge this series in the arm64 tree and push it to next: > > > > http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1452007180-27411-1-git-send-email-ard.biesheuvel at linaro.org > > > > If there are any objections, I can drop the patches and do the > > BUILDTIME_EXTABLE_SORT disabling trick until they end up in mainline. > > Latest version is here: > http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1453892123-17973-1-git-send-email-ard.biesheuvel at linaro.org > (only difference is an ack from that Alpha maintainter/supporter to > patches #1 and #2) I applied the acks manually but I'll double-check to make sure I haven't missed anything. > However, the arm64 patch (#6) now conflicts with futex.h in -rc3 after > the PAN fix, not sure how to best address that ... I'll have a look. -- Catalin