Re: [PATCH v4.4 V2 25/43] arm64: Move BP hardening to check_and_switch_context

From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
To: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Cc: Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	Julien Thierry <julien.thierry@arm.com>,
	Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
	stable@vger.kernel.org, mark.brown@arm.com,
	julien.thierry.kdev@gmail.com,
	Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4.4 V2 25/43] arm64: Move BP hardening to check_and_switch_context
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2019 13:11:31 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190801074131.526h5d4hwpxutlq2@vireshk-i7> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190801073444.4n45h6kcbmejvzte@willie-the-truck>

On 01-08-19, 08:34, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 01, 2019 at 12:35:41PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 01-08-19, 08:57, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 01, 2019 at 12:05:44PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > > > On 01-08-19, 07:30, Julien Thierry wrote:
> > > > > I must admit I am not familiar with backport/stable process enough. But
> > > > > personally I think the your suggestion seems more sensible than
> > > > > backporting 4 patches.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Or you can maybe ignore patch 25 and say in patch 24 that among the
> > > > > changes made for the 4.4 codebase, the call arm64_apply_bp_hardening()
> > > > > was moved from post_ttbr_update_workaround as it doesn't exist and
> > > > > placed in check_and_switch_context() as it is its final destination.
> > > > 
> > > > Done that and dropped the other two patches.
> > > > 
> > > > > However, I really don't know what's the best way to proceed according to
> > > > > existing practices. So input from someone else would be welcome.
> > > > 
> > > > Lets see if someone comes up and ask me to do something else :)
> > > 
> > > Keeping the same patches that upstream has is almost always the better
> > > thing to do in the long-run.
> > 
> > That would require two additional patches to be backported, 22 and 23
> > from this series. From your suggestion it seems that keeping them is
> > better here ?
> 
> Yes. Backporting individual patches as they appear upstream is definitely
> the preferred method for -stable. It makes the relationship to mainline
> crystal clear, as well as any dependencies between patches that have been
> backported. Everytime we tweak something unecessarily in a stable backport,
> it just creates the potential for confusion and additional conflicts in
> future backports, so it's best to follow the shape of upstream as closely as
> possible, even if it results in additional patches.
> 
> So I wouldn't worry about total number of patches. I'd worry more about
> things like conflicts, deviation from mainline and overall testing coverage.

Okay, I won't make these changes then. Thanks.

-- 
viresh