From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@kernel.org>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org>,
linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org,
Linux-sh list <linux-sh@vger.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@gmail.com>, Guo Ren <guoren@kernel.org>,
sparclinux <sparclinux@vger.kernel.org>,
"open list:QUALCOMM HEXAGON..." <linux-hexagon@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-riscv <linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>,
linux-s390 <linux-s390@vger.kernel.org>,
Brian Cain <bcain@codeaurora.org>, Helge Deller <deller@gmx.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/14] x86: use more conventional access_ok() definition
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2022 21:00:11 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220214200011.GA3786@lst.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAK8P3a1F3JaYaJPy9bSCG1+YV6EN05PE0DbwpD_GT1qRwFSJ-w@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 08:45:52PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> As Al pointed out, they turned out to be necessary on sparc64, but the only
> definitions are on sparc64 and x86, so it's possible that they serve a similar
> purpose here, in which case changing the limit from TASK_SIZE to
> TASK_SIZE_MAX is probably wrong as well.
>
> So either I need to revert the original definition as I did on sparc64, or
> they can be removed completely. Hopefully Al or the x86 maintainers
> can clarify.
Looking at the x86 users I think:
- valid_user_frame should go away and the caller should use get_user
instead of __get_user
- the one in copy_code can just go away, as there is another check
in copy_from_user_nmi
- copy_stack_frame should just use access_ok
- as does copy_from_user_nmi
but yes, having someone who actually knows this code look over it
would be very helpful.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@kernel.org>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org>,
linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org,
Linux-sh list <linux-sh@vger.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@gmail.com>, Guo Ren <guoren@kernel.org>,
sparclinux <sparclinux@vger.kernel.org>,
"open list:QUALCOMM HEXAGON..." <linux-hexagon@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-riscv <linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>,
linux-s390 <linux-s390@vger.kernel.org>,
Brian Cain <bcain@codeaurora.org>, Helge Deller <deller@gmx.de>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
linux-csky@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
"open list:SYNOPSYS ARC ARCHITECTURE"
<linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org>,
"open list:TENSILICA XTENSA PORT (xtensa)"
<linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org>,
Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>,
alpha <linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-um <linux-um@lists.infradead.org>,
linux-m68k <linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org>,
Openrisc <openrisc@lists.librecores.org>,
Greentime Hu <green.hu@gmail.com>,
Stafford Horne <shorne@gmail.com>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
Michal Simek <monstr@monstr.eu>,
Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@alpha.franken.de>,
Parisc List <linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org>,
Nick Hu <nickhu@andestech.com>,
"open list:BROADCOM NVRAM DRIVER" <linux-mips@vger.kernel.org>,
Dinh Nguyen <dinguyen@kernel.org>,
"Eric W . Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/14] x86: use more conventional access_ok() definition
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2022 21:00:11 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220214200011.GA3786@lst.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAK8P3a1F3JaYaJPy9bSCG1+YV6EN05PE0DbwpD_GT1qRwFSJ-w@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 08:45:52PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> As Al pointed out, they turned out to be necessary on sparc64, but the only
> definitions are on sparc64 and x86, so it's possible that they serve a similar
> purpose here, in which case changing the limit from TASK_SIZE to
> TASK_SIZE_MAX is probably wrong as well.
>
> So either I need to revert the original definition as I did on sparc64, or
> they can be removed completely. Hopefully Al or the x86 maintainers
> can clarify.
Looking at the x86 users I think:
- valid_user_frame should go away and the caller should use get_user
instead of __get_user
- the one in copy_code can just go away, as there is another check
in copy_from_user_nmi
- copy_stack_frame should just use access_ok
- as does copy_from_user_nmi
but yes, having someone who actually knows this code look over it
would be very helpful.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@kernel.org>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org>,
linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org,
Linux-sh list <linux-sh@vger.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@gmail.com>, Guo Ren <guoren@kernel.org>,
sparclinux <sparclinux@vger.kernel.org>,
"open list:QUALCOMM HEXAGON..." <linux-hexagon@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-riscv <linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>,
linux-s390 <linux-s390@vger.kernel.org>,
Brian Cain <bcain@codeaurora.org>, Helge Deller <deller@gmx.de>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
linux-csky@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
"open list:SYNOPSYS ARC ARCHITECTURE"
<linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org>,
"open list:TENSILICA XTENSA PORT (xtensa)"
<linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org>,
Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>,
alpha <linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-um <linux-um@lists.infradead.org>,
linux-m68k <linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org>,
Openrisc <openrisc@lists.librecores.org>,
Greentime Hu <green.hu@gmail.com>,
Stafford Horne <shorne@gmail.com>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
Michal Simek <monstr@monstr.eu>,
Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@alpha.franken.de>,
Parisc List <linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org>,
Nick Hu <nickhu@andestech.com>,
"open list:BROADCOM NVRAM DRIVER" <linux-mips@vger.kernel.org>,
Dinh Nguyen <dinguyen@kernel.org>,
"Eric W . Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/14] x86: use more conventional access_ok() definition
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2022 20:00:11 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220214200011.GA3786@lst.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAK8P3a1F3JaYaJPy9bSCG1+YV6EN05PE0DbwpD_GT1qRwFSJ-w@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 08:45:52PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> As Al pointed out, they turned out to be necessary on sparc64, but the only
> definitions are on sparc64 and x86, so it's possible that they serve a similar
> purpose here, in which case changing the limit from TASK_SIZE to
> TASK_SIZE_MAX is probably wrong as well.
>
> So either I need to revert the original definition as I did on sparc64, or
> they can be removed completely. Hopefully Al or the x86 maintainers
> can clarify.
Looking at the x86 users I think:
- valid_user_frame should go away and the caller should use get_user
instead of __get_user
- the one in copy_code can just go away, as there is another check
in copy_from_user_nmi
- copy_stack_frame should just use access_ok
- as does copy_from_user_nmi
but yes, having someone who actually knows this code look over it
would be very helpful.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@kernel.org>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org>,
linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org,
Linux-sh list <linux-sh@vger.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@gmail.com>, Guo Ren <guoren@kernel.org>,
sparclinux <sparclinux@vger.kernel.org>,
"open list:QUALCOMM HEXAGON..." <linux-hexagon@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-riscv <linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>,
linux-s390 <linux-s390@vger.kernel.org>,
Brian Cain <bcain@codeaurora.org>, Helge Deller <deller@gmx.de>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
linux-csky@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
"open list:SYNOPSYS ARC ARCHITECTURE"
<linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org>,
"open list:TENSILICA XTENSA PORT (xtensa)"
<linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org>,
Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>,
alpha <linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-um <linux-um@lists.infradead.org>,
linux-m68k <linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org>,
Openrisc <openrisc@lists.librecores.org>,
Greentime Hu <green.hu@gmail.com>,
Stafford Horne <shorne@gmail.com>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
Michal Simek <monstr@monstr.eu>,
Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@alpha.franken.de>,
Parisc List <linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org>,
Nick Hu <nickhu@andestech.com>,
"open list:BROADCOM NVRAM DRIVER" <linux-mips@vger.kernel.org>,
Dinh Nguyen <dinguyen@kernel.org>,
"Eric W . Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/14] x86: use more conventional access_ok() definition
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2022 21:00:11 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220214200011.GA3786@lst.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAK8P3a1F3JaYaJPy9bSCG1+YV6EN05PE0DbwpD_GT1qRwFSJ-w@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 08:45:52PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> As Al pointed out, they turned out to be necessary on sparc64, but the only
> definitions are on sparc64 and x86, so it's possible that they serve a similar
> purpose here, in which case changing the limit from TASK_SIZE to
> TASK_SIZE_MAX is probably wrong as well.
>
> So either I need to revert the original definition as I did on sparc64, or
> they can be removed completely. Hopefully Al or the x86 maintainers
> can clarify.
Looking at the x86 users I think:
- valid_user_frame should go away and the caller should use get_user
instead of __get_user
- the one in copy_code can just go away, as there is another check
in copy_from_user_nmi
- copy_stack_frame should just use access_ok
- as does copy_from_user_nmi
but yes, having someone who actually knows this code look over it
would be very helpful.
_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@kernel.org>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org>,
linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org,
Linux-sh list <linux-sh@vger.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@gmail.com>, Guo Ren <guoren@kernel.org>,
sparclinux <sparclinux@vger.kernel.org>,
"open list:QUALCOMM HEXAGON..." <linux-hexagon@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-riscv <linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>,
linux-s390 <linux-s390@vger.kernel.org>,
Brian Cain <bcain@codeaurora.org>, Helge Deller <deller@gmx.de>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
linux-csky@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
"open list:SYNOPSYS ARC ARCHITECTURE"
<linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org>,
"open list:TENSILICA XTENSA PORT (xtensa)"
<linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org>,
Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>,
alpha <linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-um <linux-um@lists.infradead.org>,
linux-m68k <linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org>,
Openrisc <openrisc@lists.librecores.org>,
Greentime Hu <green.hu@gmail.com>,
Stafford Horne <shorne@gmail.com>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
Michal Simek <monstr@monstr.eu>,
Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@alpha.franken.de>,
Parisc List <linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org>,
Nick Hu <nickhu@andestech.com>,
"open list:BROADCOM NVRAM DRIVER" <linux-mips@vger.kernel.org>,
Dinh Nguyen <dinguyen@kernel.org>,
"Eric W . Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/14] x86: use more conventional access_ok() definition
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2022 21:00:11 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220214200011.GA3786@lst.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAK8P3a1F3JaYaJPy9bSCG1+YV6EN05PE0DbwpD_GT1qRwFSJ-w@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 08:45:52PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> As Al pointed out, they turned out to be necessary on sparc64, but the only
> definitions are on sparc64 and x86, so it's possible that they serve a similar
> purpose here, in which case changing the limit from TASK_SIZE to
> TASK_SIZE_MAX is probably wrong as well.
>
> So either I need to revert the original definition as I did on sparc64, or
> they can be removed completely. Hopefully Al or the x86 maintainers
> can clarify.
Looking at the x86 users I think:
- valid_user_frame should go away and the caller should use get_user
instead of __get_user
- the one in copy_code can just go away, as there is another check
in copy_from_user_nmi
- copy_stack_frame should just use access_ok
- as does copy_from_user_nmi
but yes, having someone who actually knows this code look over it
would be very helpful.
_______________________________________________
linux-snps-arc mailing list
linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-snps-arc
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To: openrisc@lists.librecores.org
Subject: [OpenRISC] [PATCH 04/14] x86: use more conventional access_ok() definition
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2022 21:00:11 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220214200011.GA3786@lst.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAK8P3a1F3JaYaJPy9bSCG1+YV6EN05PE0DbwpD_GT1qRwFSJ-w@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 08:45:52PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> As Al pointed out, they turned out to be necessary on sparc64, but the only
> definitions are on sparc64 and x86, so it's possible that they serve a similar
> purpose here, in which case changing the limit from TASK_SIZE to
> TASK_SIZE_MAX is probably wrong as well.
>
> So either I need to revert the original definition as I did on sparc64, or
> they can be removed completely. Hopefully Al or the x86 maintainers
> can clarify.
Looking at the x86 users I think:
- valid_user_frame should go away and the caller should use get_user
instead of __get_user
- the one in copy_code can just go away, as there is another check
in copy_from_user_nmi
- copy_stack_frame should just use access_ok
- as does copy_from_user_nmi
but yes, having someone who actually knows this code look over it
would be very helpful.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@kernel.org>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org>,
linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org,
Linux-sh list <linux-sh@vger.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
"open list:BROADCOM NVRAM DRIVER" <linux-mips@vger.kernel.org>,
Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@gmail.com>, Guo Ren <guoren@kernel.org>,
sparclinux <sparclinux@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-riscv <linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-s390 <linux-s390@vger.kernel.org>,
Brian Cain <bcain@codeaurora.org>,
"open list:QUALCOMM HEXAGON..." <linux-hexagon@vger.kernel.org>,
Helge Deller <deller@gmx.de>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
linux-csky@vger.kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
"open list:SYNOPSYS ARC ARCHITECTURE"
<linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org>,
"open list:TENSILICA XTENSA PORT \(xtensa\)"
<linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>,
linux-um <linux-um@lists.infradead.org>,
linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
linux-m68k <linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org>,
Openrisc <openrisc@lists.librecores.org>,
Greentime Hu <green.hu@gmail.com>,
Stafford Horne <shorne@gmail.com>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
Michal Simek <monstr@monstr.eu>,
Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@alpha.franken.de>,
Nick Hu <nickhu@andestech.com>,
Parisc List <linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Dinh Nguyen <dinguyen@kernel.org>,
"Eric W . Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
alpha <linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/14] x86: use more conventional access_ok() definition
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2022 21:00:11 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220214200011.GA3786@lst.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAK8P3a1F3JaYaJPy9bSCG1+YV6EN05PE0DbwpD_GT1qRwFSJ-w@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 08:45:52PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> As Al pointed out, they turned out to be necessary on sparc64, but the only
> definitions are on sparc64 and x86, so it's possible that they serve a similar
> purpose here, in which case changing the limit from TASK_SIZE to
> TASK_SIZE_MAX is probably wrong as well.
>
> So either I need to revert the original definition as I did on sparc64, or
> they can be removed completely. Hopefully Al or the x86 maintainers
> can clarify.
Looking at the x86 users I think:
- valid_user_frame should go away and the caller should use get_user
instead of __get_user
- the one in copy_code can just go away, as there is another check
in copy_from_user_nmi
- copy_stack_frame should just use access_ok
- as does copy_from_user_nmi
but yes, having someone who actually knows this code look over it
would be very helpful.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-02-14 20:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 450+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-02-14 16:34 [PATCH 00/14] clean up asm/uaccess.h, kill set_fs for good Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` [OpenRISC] " Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` [PATCH 01/14] uaccess: fix integer overflow on access_ok() Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` [OpenRISC] " Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:58 ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-02-14 16:58 ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-02-14 16:58 ` [OpenRISC] " Christoph Hellwig
2022-02-14 16:58 ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-02-14 16:58 ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-02-14 16:58 ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-02-14 16:58 ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-02-14 16:58 ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-02-14 16:34 ` [PATCH 02/14] sparc64: add __{get,put}_kernel_nocheck() Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` [OpenRISC] [PATCH 02/14] sparc64: add __{get, put}_kernel_nocheck() Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` [PATCH 02/14] sparc64: add __{get,put}_kernel_nocheck() Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` [PATCH 03/14] nds32: fix access_ok() checks in get/put_user Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` [OpenRISC] " Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 17:01 ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-02-14 17:01 ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-02-14 17:01 ` [OpenRISC] " Christoph Hellwig
2022-02-14 17:01 ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-02-14 17:01 ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-02-14 17:01 ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-02-14 17:01 ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-02-14 17:01 ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-02-14 17:10 ` David Laight
2022-02-14 17:10 ` David Laight
2022-02-14 17:10 ` [OpenRISC] " David Laight
2022-02-14 17:10 ` David Laight
2022-02-14 17:10 ` David Laight
2022-02-14 17:10 ` David Laight
2022-02-15 9:18 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-15 9:18 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-15 9:18 ` [OpenRISC] " Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-15 9:18 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-15 9:18 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-15 9:18 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-15 9:18 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-15 10:25 ` Greg KH
2022-02-15 10:25 ` Greg KH
2022-02-15 10:25 ` [OpenRISC] " Greg KH
2022-02-15 10:25 ` Greg KH
2022-02-15 10:25 ` Greg KH
2022-02-15 10:25 ` Greg KH
2022-02-15 10:25 ` Greg KH
2022-02-14 16:34 ` [PATCH 04/14] x86: use more conventional access_ok() definition Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` [OpenRISC] " Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 17:02 ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-02-14 17:02 ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-02-14 17:02 ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-02-14 17:02 ` [OpenRISC] " Christoph Hellwig
2022-02-14 17:02 ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-02-14 17:02 ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-02-14 17:02 ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-02-14 17:02 ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-02-14 17:02 ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-02-14 19:45 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 19:45 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 19:45 ` [OpenRISC] " Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 19:45 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 19:45 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 19:45 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 19:45 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 20:00 ` Christoph Hellwig [this message]
2022-02-14 20:00 ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-02-14 20:00 ` [OpenRISC] " Christoph Hellwig
2022-02-14 20:00 ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-02-14 20:00 ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-02-14 20:00 ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-02-14 20:00 ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-02-14 20:01 ` Linus Torvalds
2022-02-14 20:01 ` Linus Torvalds
2022-02-14 20:01 ` [OpenRISC] " Linus Torvalds
2022-02-14 20:01 ` Linus Torvalds
2022-02-14 20:01 ` Linus Torvalds
2022-02-14 20:01 ` Linus Torvalds
2022-02-14 20:01 ` Linus Torvalds
2022-02-14 20:17 ` Al Viro
2022-02-14 20:17 ` Al Viro
2022-02-14 20:17 ` [OpenRISC] " Al Viro
2022-02-14 20:17 ` Al Viro
2022-02-14 20:17 ` Al Viro
2022-02-14 20:17 ` Al Viro
2022-02-15 2:47 ` Al Viro
2022-02-15 2:47 ` Al Viro
2022-02-15 2:47 ` [OpenRISC] " Al Viro
2022-02-15 2:47 ` Al Viro
2022-02-15 2:47 ` Al Viro
2022-02-15 2:47 ` Al Viro
2022-02-14 20:24 ` Linus Torvalds
2022-02-14 20:24 ` Linus Torvalds
2022-02-14 20:24 ` [OpenRISC] " Linus Torvalds
2022-02-14 20:24 ` Linus Torvalds
2022-02-14 20:24 ` Linus Torvalds
2022-02-14 20:24 ` Linus Torvalds
2022-02-14 20:24 ` Linus Torvalds
2022-02-14 20:24 ` Linus Torvalds
[not found] ` <CAHk-=wgYu67OwP4LhcrPdDVxv2mOsx-Xsc2DKoVW6GZwKFtOYQ-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>
2022-02-14 22:13 ` David Laight
2022-02-14 22:13 ` David Laight
2022-02-14 22:13 ` [OpenRISC] " David Laight
2022-02-14 22:13 ` David Laight
2022-02-14 22:13 ` David Laight
2022-02-14 22:13 ` David Laight
2022-02-14 22:13 ` David Laight
2022-02-14 22:13 ` David Laight
2022-02-14 16:34 ` [PATCH 05/14] uaccess: add generic __{get,put}_kernel_nofault Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` [OpenRISC] [PATCH 05/14] uaccess: add generic __{get, put}_kernel_nofault Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` [PATCH 05/14] uaccess: add generic __{get,put}_kernel_nofault Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 17:02 ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-02-14 17:02 ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-02-14 17:02 ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-02-14 17:02 ` [OpenRISC] [PATCH 05/14] uaccess: add generic __{get, put}_kernel_nofault Christoph Hellwig
2022-02-14 17:02 ` [PATCH 05/14] uaccess: add generic __{get,put}_kernel_nofault Christoph Hellwig
2022-02-14 17:02 ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-02-14 17:02 ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-02-14 17:02 ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-02-14 17:02 ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-02-15 0:31 ` Al Viro
2022-02-15 0:31 ` Al Viro
2022-02-15 0:31 ` [OpenRISC] [PATCH 05/14] uaccess: add generic __{get, put}_kernel_nofault Al Viro
2022-02-15 0:31 ` [PATCH 05/14] uaccess: add generic __{get,put}_kernel_nofault Al Viro
2022-02-15 0:31 ` Al Viro
2022-02-15 0:31 ` Al Viro
2022-02-15 13:16 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-15 13:16 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-15 13:16 ` [OpenRISC] [PATCH 05/14] uaccess: add generic __{get, put}_kernel_nofault Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-15 13:16 ` [PATCH 05/14] uaccess: add generic __{get,put}_kernel_nofault Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-15 13:16 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-15 13:16 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-15 13:16 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` [PATCH 06/14] mips: use simpler access_ok() Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` [OpenRISC] " Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` [PATCH 07/14] uaccess: generalize access_ok() Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` [OpenRISC] " Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 17:04 ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-02-14 17:04 ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-02-14 17:04 ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-02-14 17:04 ` [OpenRISC] " Christoph Hellwig
2022-02-14 17:04 ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-02-14 17:04 ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-02-14 17:04 ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-02-14 17:04 ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-02-14 17:04 ` Christoph Hellwig
[not found] ` <20220214163452.1568807-8-arnd-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
2022-02-14 17:15 ` Al Viro
2022-02-14 17:15 ` Al Viro
2022-02-14 17:15 ` [OpenRISC] " Al Viro
2022-02-14 17:15 ` Al Viro
2022-02-14 17:15 ` Al Viro
2022-02-14 17:15 ` Al Viro
2022-02-14 19:25 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 19:25 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 19:25 ` [OpenRISC] " Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 19:25 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 19:25 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 19:25 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 19:25 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-15 10:58 ` Mark Rutland
2022-02-15 10:58 ` Mark Rutland
2022-02-15 10:58 ` Mark Rutland
2022-02-15 10:58 ` [OpenRISC] " Mark Rutland
2022-02-15 10:58 ` Mark Rutland
2022-02-15 10:58 ` Mark Rutland
2022-02-15 10:58 ` Mark Rutland
2022-02-15 10:58 ` Mark Rutland
2022-02-14 16:34 ` [PATCH 08/14] arm64: simplify access_ok() Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` [OpenRISC] " Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 21:06 ` Robin Murphy
2022-02-14 21:06 ` Robin Murphy
2022-02-14 21:06 ` [OpenRISC] " Robin Murphy
2022-02-14 21:06 ` Robin Murphy
2022-02-14 21:06 ` Robin Murphy
2022-02-14 21:06 ` Robin Murphy
2022-02-14 21:06 ` Robin Murphy
2022-02-15 8:17 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2022-02-15 8:17 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2022-02-15 8:17 ` [OpenRISC] " Ard Biesheuvel
2022-02-15 8:17 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2022-02-15 8:17 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2022-02-15 8:17 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2022-02-15 8:17 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2022-02-15 9:12 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-15 9:12 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-15 9:12 ` [OpenRISC] " Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-15 9:12 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-15 9:12 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-15 9:12 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-15 9:12 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-15 9:21 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2022-02-15 9:21 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2022-02-15 9:21 ` [OpenRISC] " Ard Biesheuvel
2022-02-15 9:21 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2022-02-15 9:21 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2022-02-15 9:21 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2022-02-15 9:21 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2022-02-15 9:39 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-15 9:39 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-15 9:39 ` [OpenRISC] " Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-15 9:39 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-15 9:39 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-15 9:39 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-15 9:39 ` Arnd Bergmann
[not found] ` <CAK8P3a0NTqK_m7q909d8FN6is8k4_u3zeckC9XOrjEi7kqSvmg-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>
2022-02-15 10:39 ` Mark Rutland
2022-02-15 10:39 ` Mark Rutland
2022-02-15 10:39 ` [OpenRISC] " Mark Rutland
2022-02-15 10:39 ` Mark Rutland
2022-02-15 10:39 ` Mark Rutland
2022-02-15 10:39 ` Mark Rutland
2022-02-15 10:37 ` Mark Rutland
2022-02-15 10:37 ` Mark Rutland
2022-02-15 10:37 ` [OpenRISC] " Mark Rutland
2022-02-15 10:37 ` Mark Rutland
2022-02-15 10:37 ` Mark Rutland
2022-02-15 10:37 ` Mark Rutland
[not found] ` <CAK8P3a2VfvDkueaJNTA9SiB+PFsi_Q17AX+aL46ueooW2ahmQw-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>
2022-02-16 19:43 ` Christophe Leroy
2022-02-16 19:43 ` Christophe Leroy
2022-02-16 19:43 ` [OpenRISC] " Christophe Leroy
2022-02-16 19:43 ` Christophe Leroy
2022-02-16 19:43 ` Christophe Leroy
2022-02-16 19:43 ` Christophe Leroy
2022-02-16 19:43 ` Christophe Leroy
2022-02-16 19:43 ` Christophe Leroy
2022-02-15 9:30 ` David Laight
2022-02-15 9:30 ` David Laight
2022-02-15 9:30 ` [OpenRISC] " David Laight
2022-02-15 9:30 ` David Laight
2022-02-15 9:30 ` David Laight
2022-02-15 9:30 ` David Laight
2022-02-15 9:30 ` David Laight
2022-02-15 9:30 ` David Laight
2022-02-15 11:24 ` Mark Rutland
2022-02-15 11:24 ` Mark Rutland
2022-02-15 11:24 ` [OpenRISC] " Mark Rutland
2022-02-15 11:24 ` Mark Rutland
2022-02-15 11:24 ` Mark Rutland
2022-02-15 11:24 ` Mark Rutland
2022-02-15 11:24 ` Mark Rutland
2022-02-15 11:07 ` Mark Rutland
2022-02-15 11:07 ` Mark Rutland
2022-02-15 11:07 ` Mark Rutland
2022-02-15 11:07 ` [OpenRISC] " Mark Rutland
2022-02-15 11:07 ` Mark Rutland
2022-02-15 11:07 ` Mark Rutland
2022-02-15 11:07 ` Mark Rutland
2022-02-15 11:07 ` Mark Rutland
2022-02-14 16:34 ` [PATCH 09/14] m68k: drop custom __access_ok() Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` [OpenRISC] " Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-15 0:37 ` Al Viro
2022-02-15 0:37 ` Al Viro
2022-02-15 0:37 ` [OpenRISC] " Al Viro
2022-02-15 0:37 ` Al Viro
2022-02-15 0:37 ` Al Viro
2022-02-15 0:37 ` Al Viro
2022-02-15 6:29 ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-02-15 6:29 ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-02-15 6:29 ` [OpenRISC] " Christoph Hellwig
2022-02-15 6:29 ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-02-15 6:29 ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-02-15 6:29 ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-02-15 6:29 ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-02-15 7:13 ` Al Viro
2022-02-15 7:13 ` Al Viro
2022-02-15 7:13 ` [OpenRISC] " Al Viro
2022-02-15 7:13 ` Al Viro
2022-02-15 7:13 ` Al Viro
2022-02-15 7:13 ` Al Viro
2022-02-15 10:02 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-15 10:02 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-15 10:02 ` [OpenRISC] " Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-15 10:02 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-15 10:02 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-15 10:02 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-15 10:02 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-15 13:28 ` David Laight
2022-02-15 13:28 ` David Laight
2022-02-15 13:28 ` [OpenRISC] " David Laight
2022-02-15 13:28 ` David Laight
2022-02-15 13:28 ` David Laight
2022-02-15 13:28 ` David Laight
2022-02-15 13:28 ` David Laight
2022-02-15 13:28 ` David Laight
2022-02-14 16:34 ` [PATCH 10/14] uaccess: remove most CONFIG_SET_FS users Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` [OpenRISC] " Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 17:06 ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-02-14 17:06 ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-02-14 17:06 ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-02-14 17:06 ` [OpenRISC] " Christoph Hellwig
2022-02-14 17:06 ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-02-14 17:06 ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-02-14 17:06 ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-02-14 17:06 ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-02-14 19:40 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 19:40 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 19:40 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 19:40 ` [OpenRISC] " Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 19:40 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 19:40 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 19:40 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 19:40 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` [PATCH 11/14] sparc64: remove CONFIG_SET_FS support Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` [OpenRISC] " Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 17:06 ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-02-14 17:06 ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-02-14 17:06 ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-02-14 17:06 ` [OpenRISC] " Christoph Hellwig
2022-02-14 17:06 ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-02-14 17:06 ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-02-14 17:06 ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-02-14 17:06 ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-02-14 17:06 ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-02-16 13:06 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-16 13:06 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-16 13:06 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-16 13:06 ` [OpenRISC] " Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-16 13:06 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-16 13:06 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-16 13:06 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-16 13:06 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-15 0:48 ` Al Viro
2022-02-15 0:48 ` Al Viro
2022-02-15 0:48 ` [OpenRISC] " Al Viro
2022-02-15 0:48 ` Al Viro
2022-02-15 0:48 ` Al Viro
2022-02-15 0:48 ` Al Viro
2022-02-16 13:07 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-16 13:07 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-16 13:07 ` [OpenRISC] " Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-16 13:07 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-16 13:07 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-16 13:07 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-16 13:07 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` [PATCH 12/14] sh: " Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` [OpenRISC] " Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` [PATCH 13/14] ia64: " Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` [OpenRISC] " Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` [PATCH 14/14] uaccess: drop set_fs leftovers Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` [OpenRISC] " Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-14 16:34 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-15 3:03 ` Al Viro
2022-02-15 3:03 ` Al Viro
2022-02-15 3:03 ` [OpenRISC] " Al Viro
2022-02-15 3:03 ` Al Viro
2022-02-15 3:03 ` Al Viro
2022-02-15 3:03 ` Al Viro
2022-02-15 7:46 ` Helge Deller
2022-02-15 7:46 ` Helge Deller
2022-02-15 7:46 ` [OpenRISC] " Helge Deller
2022-02-15 7:46 ` Helge Deller
2022-02-15 7:46 ` Helge Deller
2022-02-15 7:46 ` Helge Deller
2022-02-15 7:46 ` Helge Deller
2022-02-15 8:10 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-15 8:10 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-15 8:10 ` [OpenRISC] " Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-15 8:10 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-15 8:10 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-15 8:10 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-02-15 8:10 ` Arnd Bergmann
[not found] ` <20220214163452.1568807-1-arnd-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
2022-02-14 17:35 ` [PATCH 00/14] clean up asm/uaccess.h, kill set_fs for good Linus Torvalds
2022-02-14 17:35 ` Linus Torvalds
2022-02-14 17:35 ` Linus Torvalds
2022-02-14 17:35 ` [OpenRISC] " Linus Torvalds
2022-02-14 17:35 ` Linus Torvalds
2022-02-14 17:35 ` Linus Torvalds
2022-02-14 17:35 ` Linus Torvalds
2022-02-14 17:35 ` Linus Torvalds
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20220214200011.GA3786@lst.de \
--to=hch@lst.de \
--cc=ardb@kernel.org \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=arnd@kernel.org \
--cc=bcain@codeaurora.org \
--cc=dalias@libc.org \
--cc=deller@gmx.de \
--cc=guoren@kernel.org \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=jcmvbkbc@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-api@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-hexagon@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-sh@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=sparclinux@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.