Messages in this thread | | | From | Ard Biesheuvel <> | Date | Mon, 24 Jun 2019 19:15:50 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/4] arm64: wire up VM_FLUSH_RESET_PERMS |
| |
On Mon, 24 Jun 2019 at 19:14, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 04:29:39PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > On Mon, 24 Jun 2019 at 13:23, Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@arm.com> wrote: > > > On 6/24/19 1:16 PM, Will Deacon wrote: > > > > On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 11:04:20AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > > > >> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 11:22:52AM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > > >>> Ard Biesheuvel (4): > > > >>> arm64: module: create module allocations without exec permissions > > > >>> arm64/mm: wire up CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_SET_DIRECT_MAP > > > >>> arm64/kprobes: set VM_FLUSH_RESET_PERMS on kprobe instruction pages > > > >>> arm64: bpf: do not allocate executable memory > > > >>> > > > >>> arch/arm64/Kconfig | 1 + > > > >>> arch/arm64/include/asm/cacheflush.h | 3 ++ > > > >>> arch/arm64/kernel/module.c | 4 +- > > > >>> arch/arm64/kernel/probes/kprobes.c | 4 +- > > > >>> arch/arm64/mm/pageattr.c | 48 ++++++++++++++++---- > > > >>> arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c | 2 +- > > > >>> mm/vmalloc.c | 11 ----- > > > >>> 7 files changed, 50 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-) > > > >> > > > >> Thanks, this all looks good to me. I can get pick this up for 5.2 if > > > >> Rick's fixes [1] land soon enough. > > > > > > > > Bah, I missed these landing in -rc5 and I think it's a bit too late for > > > > us to take this for 5.2. now particularly with our limited ability to > > > > fix any late regressions that might arise. > > > > > > > > In which case, Catalin, please can you take these for 5.3? You might run > > > > into some testing failures with for-next/core due to the late of Rick's > > > > fixes, but linux-next should be alright and I don't think you'll get any > > > > conflicts. > > > > > > > > Acked-by: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> > > > > > > > > Ard: are you ok with that? > > > > > > That is fine, although I won't be around to pick up the pieces by the > > > time the merge window opens. Also, I'd like to follow up on the lazy > > > vunmap thing for non-x86, but perhaps we can talk about this at plumbers? > > > > Actually, you will run into a couple of conflicts. Let me know if you > > want me to respin (although they still won't apply cleanly to both > > for-next/core and -next) > > I queued them in for-next/core (and fixed a minor conflict). Thanks. >
OK, in that case, you will get a conflict in -next on the hunk against mm/vmalloc.c in the second patch. Just FYI ...
| |