From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.linutronix.de (146.0.238.70:993) by crypto-ml.lab.linutronix.de with IMAP4-SSL for ; 22 Feb 2019 14:36:12 -0000 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]) by Galois.linutronix.de with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1gxBvu-0001l7-M6 for speck@linutronix.de; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 15:36:11 +0100 Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2019 15:36:00 +0100 From: Greg KH Subject: [MODERATED] Re: [patch V3 4/9] MDS basics 4 Message-ID: <20190222143600.GB12675@kroah.com> References: <20190221234431.922117624@linutronix.de> <20190221235534.731858403@linutronix.de> <20190222065843.GB21639@kroah.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: speck@linutronix.de List-ID: On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 11:44:13AM +0100, speck for Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Fri, 22 Feb 2019, speck for Greg KH wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 12:44:35AM +0100, speck for Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > +There is one exception, which is untrusted BPF. The functionality of > > > +untrusted BPF is limited, but it needs to be thoroughly investigated > > > +whether it can be used to create such a construct. > > > > A meta-comment, is anyone looking at the untrusted BPF issue? Do we > > have the BPF developers on this list so that they have the chance to > > figure this out? > > I assume this is a rethorical question :( No, it wasn't, I was really hoping that the BPF developers were notified of all of this. Ugh, this whole mess is horrible... greg k-h