From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E34A5C43467 for ; Thu, 8 Oct 2020 10:09:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [203.11.71.2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DD9C22065C for ; Thu, 8 Oct 2020 10:09:37 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=ellerman.id.au header.i=@ellerman.id.au header.b="ixnS8cV4" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org DD9C22065C Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=ellerman.id.au Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Received: from bilbo.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::3]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C6Rl31LvQzDqX7 for ; Thu, 8 Oct 2020 21:09:35 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from ozlabs.org (bilbo.ozlabs.org [203.11.71.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4C6RhQ4YpXzDqBj for ; Thu, 8 Oct 2020 21:07:18 +1100 (AEDT) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=ellerman.id.au Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=ellerman.id.au header.i=@ellerman.id.au header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=201909 header.b=ixnS8cV4; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from authenticated.ozlabs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4C6RhP00Qvz9sT6; Thu, 8 Oct 2020 21:07:16 +1100 (AEDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ellerman.id.au; s=201909; t=1602151637; bh=eNG1RyjqNmOm7441Ouc9ni/lGO8jgy6V8+FrXQf4kmE=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=ixnS8cV4Q4MSAGho2zjlIKJJgNmnrvBVFjwDxHWNwsbJaAGA8W9fiKzWBlwLQI+CW cP7//cRdNpcodhyaIIesDXI9Pytf38ooJ8OZ0kiqQ1uE6iaoKe9c7ZaEX3GPLjcsBm /h/SUVum41uWKLr66a0yv6Z+wABkvxDe7MHwVD5g5lLtfSwIW96KlDn3EtVudTeCzX inJNjToJOuirp0ZMHIqpBuSFG8TPtmlN0HZAGSFiwPMSixe472j2YL4rnD/HMGtvuS FxTMHwuDDUBdeRj1/Nfu+cZy9GV6fB+oVzI/ccDHkEAt/Kci6O2RJ+0CfjGQZuTNfm ltjSQgJfYQNtA== From: Michael Ellerman To: Andrew Donnellan , Sasha Levin , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] powerpc/rtas: Restrict RTAS requests from userspace In-Reply-To: <87v9fl117r.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au> References: <20200820044512.7543-1-ajd@linux.ibm.com> <20200826135348.AD06422B4B@mail.kernel.org> <421cba41-20bf-f874-c81a-8b7f9944c845@linux.ibm.com> <87v9fl117r.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au> Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2020 21:07:16 +1100 Message-ID: <87sgap1163.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: nathanl@linux.ibm.com, leobras.c@gmail.com, stable@vger.kernel.org, dja@axtens.net Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" Michael Ellerman writes: > Andrew Donnellan writes: >> On 26/8/20 11:53 pm, Sasha Levin wrote: >>> How should we proceed with this patch? >> >> mpe: I believe we came to the conclusion that we shouldn't put this in >> stable just yet? > > Yeah. > > Let's give it a little time to get some wider testing before we backport > it. So my fault for not dropping the Cc: stable on the commit, sorry. cheers