Re: [PATCH 2/5 v16] ARM: Replace string mem* functions for KASan - Russell King

From: Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@armlinux.org.uk>
To: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
Cc: Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@gmail.com>,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
	Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
	Ahmad Fatoum <a.fatoum@pengutronix.de>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
	Abbott Liu <liuwenliang@huawei.com>,
	Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@linaro.org>,
	kasan-dev <kasan-dev@googlegroups.com>,
	Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com>,
	Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>,
	Alexander Potapenko <glider@google.com>,
	Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>,
	Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@virtuozzo.com>,
	Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>,
	Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5 v16] ARM: Replace string mem* functions for KASan
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2020 16:06:43 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201109160643.GY1551@shell.armlinux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CACRpkdaaDMCmYsEptrcQdngqFW6E+Y0gWEZHfKQdUqgw7hiX1Q@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Nov 09, 2020 at 05:02:09PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 6, 2020 at 4:16 PM Russell King - ARM Linux admin
> <linux@armlinux.org.uk> wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 06, 2020 at 02:37:21PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> 
> > > Aha. So shall we submit this to Russell? I figure that his git will not
> > > build *without* the changes from mmotm?
> > >
> > > That tree isn't using git either is it?
> > >
> > > Is this one of those cases where we should ask Stephen R
> > > to carry this patch on top of -next until the merge window?
> >
> > Another solution would be to drop 9017/2 ("Enable KASan for ARM")
> > until the following merge window, and queue up the non-conflicing
> > ARM KASan fixes in my "misc" branch along with the rest of KASan,
> > and the conflicting patches along with 9017/2 in the following
> > merge window.
> >
> > That means delaying KASan enablement another three months or so,
> > but should result in less headaches about how to avoid build
> > breakage with different bits going through different trees.
> >
> > Comments?
> 
> I suppose I would survive deferring it. Or we could merge the
> smaller enablement patch towards the end of the merge
> window once the MM changes are in.
> 
> If it is just *one* patch in the MM tree I suppose we could also
> just apply that one patch also to the ARM tree, and then this
> fixup on top. It does look a bit convoluted in the git history with
> two hashes and the same patch twice, but it's what I've done
> at times when there was no other choice that doing that or
> deferring development. It works as long as the patches are
> textually identical: git will cope.

I thought there was a problem that if I applied the fix then my tree
no longer builds without the changes in -mm?

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!