Unreviewed arm64 ABI change in linux-next via driver-core tree

Unreviewed arm64 ABI change in linux-next via driver-core tree

[Will Deacon]

Hi Greg,

We stumbled over a change in linux-next that has ABI implications for arm64
and, as far as we can tell, has not been reviewed:

https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/commit/arch/arm64/kernel?id=fb7ff3f8721b87bf078868c9a252fa0cf71a47c2

("fb7ff3f8721b cpuinfo: implement sysfs nodes for arm64")

It looks like this was requested by you on LKML here:

https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/8/2/663

but these sorts of changes really need to go on the linux-arm-kernel mailing
list with the maintainers on cc so that the patches can be properly reviewed
and eventually acked if appropriate. In this case, I can't find any trace of
the patch on any of the mailing lists to which I'm subscribed.

Please can you drop this from your tree until we've had a chance to review
it properly? If Felix can repost it as above, then we can get the discussion
started because, aside from this email, we have concerns about exactly what
is being exposed to userspace here.

Thanks,

Will

Unreviewed arm64 ABI change in linux-next via driver-core tree

[Will Deacon]

Hi Greg,

We stumbled over a change in linux-next that has ABI implications for arm64
and, as far as we can tell, has not been reviewed:

https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/commit/arch/arm64/kernel?id=fb7ff3f8721b87bf078868c9a252fa0cf71a47c2

("fb7ff3f8721b cpuinfo: implement sysfs nodes for arm64")

It looks like this was requested by you on LKML here:

https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/8/2/663

but these sorts of changes really need to go on the linux-arm-kernel mailing
list with the maintainers on cc so that the patches can be properly reviewed
and eventually acked if appropriate. In this case, I can't find any trace of
the patch on any of the mailing lists to which I'm subscribed.

Please can you drop this from your tree until we've had a chance to review
it properly? If Felix can repost it as above, then we can get the discussion
started because, aside from this email, we have concerns about exactly what
is being exposed to userspace here.

Thanks,

Will

Unreviewed arm64 ABI change in linux-next via driver-core tree

[Felix Schnizlein]

Hi Will, Hi Greg,

It seems this is all my fault. It looks like forgot to check that the
outgoing mailserver send the patches correctly to the mailinglists which
doesn't happen.

So to make this horrible situation short maybe drop the patches and I
will resend them and make sure this time everything works as expected

Sorry Greg for all the stress :(

Felix
On 26.09.17, Will Deacon wrote:
> Hi Greg,
> 
> We stumbled over a change in linux-next that has ABI implications for arm64
> and, as far as we can tell, has not been reviewed:
> 
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/commit/arch/arm64/kernel?id=fb7ff3f8721b87bf078868c9a252fa0cf71a47c2
> 
> ("fb7ff3f8721b cpuinfo: implement sysfs nodes for arm64")
> 
> It looks like this was requested by you on LKML here:
> 
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/8/2/663
> 
> but these sorts of changes really need to go on the linux-arm-kernel mailing
> list with the maintainers on cc so that the patches can be properly reviewed
> and eventually acked if appropriate. In this case, I can't find any trace of
> the patch on any of the mailing lists to which I'm subscribed.
> 
> Please can you drop this from your tree until we've had a chance to review
> it properly? If Felix can repost it as above, then we can get the discussion
> started because, aside from this email, we have concerns about exactly what
> is being exposed to userspace here.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Will
> 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20170926/cbb9c5f3/attachment.sig>

Re: Unreviewed arm64 ABI change in linux-next via driver-core tree

[Felix Schnizlein]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1487 bytes --]

Hi Will, Hi Greg,

It seems this is all my fault. It looks like forgot to check that the
outgoing mailserver send the patches correctly to the mailinglists which
doesn't happen.

So to make this horrible situation short maybe drop the patches and I
will resend them and make sure this time everything works as expected

Sorry Greg for all the stress :(

Felix
On 26.09.17, Will Deacon wrote:
> Hi Greg,
> 
> We stumbled over a change in linux-next that has ABI implications for arm64
> and, as far as we can tell, has not been reviewed:
> 
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/commit/arch/arm64/kernel?id=fb7ff3f8721b87bf078868c9a252fa0cf71a47c2
> 
> ("fb7ff3f8721b cpuinfo: implement sysfs nodes for arm64")
> 
> It looks like this was requested by you on LKML here:
> 
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/8/2/663
> 
> but these sorts of changes really need to go on the linux-arm-kernel mailing
> list with the maintainers on cc so that the patches can be properly reviewed
> and eventually acked if appropriate. In this case, I can't find any trace of
> the patch on any of the mailing lists to which I'm subscribed.
> 
> Please can you drop this from your tree until we've had a chance to review
> it properly? If Felix can repost it as above, then we can get the discussion
> started because, aside from this email, we have concerns about exactly what
> is being exposed to userspace here.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Will
> 

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Unreviewed arm64 ABI change in linux-next via driver-core tree

[Mark Rutland]

Hi,

On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 01:45:37PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> Hi Greg,
> 
> We stumbled over a change in linux-next that has ABI implications for arm64
> and, as far as we can tell, has not been reviewed:
> 
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/commit/arch/arm64/kernel?id=fb7ff3f8721b87bf078868c9a252fa0cf71a47c2
> 
> ("fb7ff3f8721b cpuinfo: implement sysfs nodes for arm64")

> Please can you drop this from your tree until we've had a chance to review
> it properly? If Felix can repost it as above, then we can get the discussion
> started because, aside from this email, we have concerns about exactly what
> is being exposed to userspace here.

Seconded.

Experience with the existing /proc/cpuinfo shows that this needs *very*
careful review.

I've worked on arm64's /proc/cpuinfo, and I'd appreciate being Cc'd on
future postings of this series. I'd also recommend that future postings
are also Cc'd to linux-arch (and maybe linux-api) so that the interface
is reviewed by a larger set of relevant parties.

Thanks,
Mark.

Re: Unreviewed arm64 ABI change in linux-next via driver-core tree

[Mark Rutland]

Hi,

On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 01:45:37PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> Hi Greg,
> 
> We stumbled over a change in linux-next that has ABI implications for arm64
> and, as far as we can tell, has not been reviewed:
> 
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/commit/arch/arm64/kernel?id=fb7ff3f8721b87bf078868c9a252fa0cf71a47c2
> 
> ("fb7ff3f8721b cpuinfo: implement sysfs nodes for arm64")

> Please can you drop this from your tree until we've had a chance to review
> it properly? If Felix can repost it as above, then we can get the discussion
> started because, aside from this email, we have concerns about exactly what
> is being exposed to userspace here.

Seconded.

Experience with the existing /proc/cpuinfo shows that this needs *very*
careful review.

I've worked on arm64's /proc/cpuinfo, and I'd appreciate being Cc'd on
future postings of this series. I'd also recommend that future postings
are also Cc'd to linux-arch (and maybe linux-api) so that the interface
is reviewed by a larger set of relevant parties.

Thanks,
Mark.

Unreviewed arm64 ABI change in linux-next via driver-core tree

[Felix Schnizlein]

On 26.09.17, Mark Rutland wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 01:45:37PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > Hi Greg,
> > 
> > We stumbled over a change in linux-next that has ABI implications for arm64
> > and, as far as we can tell, has not been reviewed:
> > 
> > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/commit/arch/arm64/kernel?id=fb7ff3f8721b87bf078868c9a252fa0cf71a47c2
> > 
> > ("fb7ff3f8721b cpuinfo: implement sysfs nodes for arm64")
> 
> > Please can you drop this from your tree until we've had a chance to review
> > it properly? If Felix can repost it as above, then we can get the discussion
> > started because, aside from this email, we have concerns about exactly what
> > is being exposed to userspace here.
> 
> Seconded.
> 
> Experience with the existing /proc/cpuinfo shows that this needs *very*
> careful review.
> 
> I've worked on arm64's /proc/cpuinfo, and I'd appreciate being Cc'd on
> future postings of this series. I'd also recommend that future postings
> are also Cc'd to linux-arch (and maybe linux-api) so that the interface
> is reviewed by a larger set of relevant parties.

I will do that!
> 
> Thanks,
> Mark.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20170926/eaad4b39/attachment.sig>

Re: Unreviewed arm64 ABI change in linux-next via driver-core tree

[Felix Schnizlein]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1209 bytes --]

On 26.09.17, Mark Rutland wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 01:45:37PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > Hi Greg,
> > 
> > We stumbled over a change in linux-next that has ABI implications for arm64
> > and, as far as we can tell, has not been reviewed:
> > 
> > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/commit/arch/arm64/kernel?id=fb7ff3f8721b87bf078868c9a252fa0cf71a47c2
> > 
> > ("fb7ff3f8721b cpuinfo: implement sysfs nodes for arm64")
> 
> > Please can you drop this from your tree until we've had a chance to review
> > it properly? If Felix can repost it as above, then we can get the discussion
> > started because, aside from this email, we have concerns about exactly what
> > is being exposed to userspace here.
> 
> Seconded.
> 
> Experience with the existing /proc/cpuinfo shows that this needs *very*
> careful review.
> 
> I've worked on arm64's /proc/cpuinfo, and I'd appreciate being Cc'd on
> future postings of this series. I'd also recommend that future postings
> are also Cc'd to linux-arch (and maybe linux-api) so that the interface
> is reviewed by a larger set of relevant parties.

I will do that!
> 
> Thanks,
> Mark.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Unreviewed arm64 ABI change in linux-next via driver-core tree

[Greg KH]

On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 02:15:26PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 01:45:37PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > Hi Greg,
> > 
> > We stumbled over a change in linux-next that has ABI implications for arm64
> > and, as far as we can tell, has not been reviewed:
> > 
> > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/commit/arch/arm64/kernel?id=fb7ff3f8721b87bf078868c9a252fa0cf71a47c2
> > 
> > ("fb7ff3f8721b cpuinfo: implement sysfs nodes for arm64")
> 
> > Please can you drop this from your tree until we've had a chance to review
> > it properly? If Felix can repost it as above, then we can get the discussion
> > started because, aside from this email, we have concerns about exactly what
> > is being exposed to userspace here.
> 
> Seconded.

Now dropped.

> Experience with the existing /proc/cpuinfo shows that this needs *very*
> careful review.

Hah, yes, but with a sysfs interface, one would "hope" that you can get
it right this time around :)

> I've worked on arm64's /proc/cpuinfo, and I'd appreciate being Cc'd on
> future postings of this series. I'd also recommend that future postings
> are also Cc'd to linux-arch (and maybe linux-api) so that the interface
> is reviewed by a larger set of relevant parties.

For some reason, this set of patches never made it to lkml or the lists
multiple times.  Both you all, and the x86 developers have objected to
these changes, so they are gone for now.

Felix, please resend the series and cc: the needed people.

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: Unreviewed arm64 ABI change in linux-next via driver-core tree

[Greg KH]

On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 02:15:26PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 01:45:37PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > Hi Greg,
> > 
> > We stumbled over a change in linux-next that has ABI implications for arm64
> > and, as far as we can tell, has not been reviewed:
> > 
> > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/commit/arch/arm64/kernel?id=fb7ff3f8721b87bf078868c9a252fa0cf71a47c2
> > 
> > ("fb7ff3f8721b cpuinfo: implement sysfs nodes for arm64")
> 
> > Please can you drop this from your tree until we've had a chance to review
> > it properly? If Felix can repost it as above, then we can get the discussion
> > started because, aside from this email, we have concerns about exactly what
> > is being exposed to userspace here.
> 
> Seconded.

Now dropped.

> Experience with the existing /proc/cpuinfo shows that this needs *very*
> careful review.

Hah, yes, but with a sysfs interface, one would "hope" that you can get
it right this time around :)

> I've worked on arm64's /proc/cpuinfo, and I'd appreciate being Cc'd on
> future postings of this series. I'd also recommend that future postings
> are also Cc'd to linux-arch (and maybe linux-api) so that the interface
> is reviewed by a larger set of relevant parties.

For some reason, this set of patches never made it to lkml or the lists
multiple times.  Both you all, and the x86 developers have objected to
these changes, so they are gone for now.

Felix, please resend the series and cc: the needed people.

thanks,

greg k-h