From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org (Ard Biesheuvel) Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2016 17:20:41 +0100 Subject: [PATCH v5sub2 0/8] arm64: implement virtual KASLR In-Reply-To: <20160208161918.GT6076@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> 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> <20160208161918.GT6076@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 8 February 2016 at 17:19, Catalin Marinas wrote: > 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. > Note that the fix is trivial, but I don't know who should be carrying the fix is all