From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 90C251F1507 for ; Fri, 11 Apr 2025 14:47:59 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1744382879; cv=none; b=M0Yjquqal3uBngS/H3dxCfy8h91cHYn1AtGuihwxgSUBrS7IOCnSPyOkcaTcDtDhx+ahNU89vGufPIT96Kt8CBjMVHXDTQz6OLqCjerVacNlxwwUhWyPrzIUJr7d9irdxSZrxEVt1/iwYQoOI4tZfeGJAAHRoggNm88HMig8sd0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1744382879; c=relaxed/simple; bh=ZMDTP6ki1UaVjLe1P7ie8JhARD72w6Gxq4H+CXcqXwU=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=BIap2ACD5YHrEJoZHglijR/X5x9pHeR3hsUUCdsrIX273pJgbQq3qduGR+McVSQ8xZIMlcSIuu4RB3pF6zbRPlb7nLM1HUf7X9VZnpwLCgNyXHas38/dZxt967BnxZPlgV3xZrh/mWsB+twCzHa6nkBN4fhnwwkqb36iJxvKiHQ= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=WlfH7Xn+; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="WlfH7Xn+" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 64E17C4CEE7; Fri, 11 Apr 2025 14:47:57 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1744382879; bh=ZMDTP6ki1UaVjLe1P7ie8JhARD72w6Gxq4H+CXcqXwU=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=WlfH7Xn+B1wU3siJMMyZ1Km4Z8r3Y3o6G+757NrlHbOP8LOfqZxYpez3wZ43wD/9f XSGjayLqrrxYAAgu61Sk4raJnXnyf70BJxXVvUX4TsYYAfGkqx0xwBRZub0Kjl9hWi BXdg4c0yXZxVkCWK09hdmCGbpFJE8o9OWWO1cU6zZN1NUycqaonYmK3D5Hov6edimD x3yVWWw0+b+aOKzVkEpNXIgNAa8lKfHGHonPXpVPklBKSKTi4aNcPU/3uE0tLPDNMt lqHjBqUVnDwtctQwEuyF+9jWu2guJwnq+qkk73Apxuhe8pWFBBly85SiHm/IMEzVBA JpnJHEQSBBceA== Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2025 07:47:54 -0700 From: Nathan Chancellor To: Andrew Morton Cc: mm-commits@vger.kernel.org, paul.walmsley@sifive.com, palmer@dabbelt.com, ldv@strace.io, charlie@rivosinc.com, aou@eecs.berkeley.edu, alex@ghiti.fr Subject: Re: + syscallh-add-syscall_set_arguments-fix.patch added to mm-new branch Message-ID: <20250411144754.GA4082891@ax162> References: <20250411014303.CF55AC4CEDD@smtp.kernel.org> <20250411024726.GA2717907@ax162> <20250410210634.dc781eab270bb994fc4a5de3@linux-foundation.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: mm-commits@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20250410210634.dc781eab270bb994fc4a5de3@linux-foundation.org> On Thu, Apr 10, 2025 at 09:06:34PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Thu, 10 Apr 2025 19:47:26 -0700 Nathan Chancellor wrote: > > > Hi Andrew, > > > > On Thu, Apr 10, 2025 at 06:43:03PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > > > The patch titled > > > Subject: riscv: avoid fortify warning in syscall_get_arguments() > > > has been added to the -mm mm-new branch. Its filename is > > > syscallh-add-syscall_set_arguments-fix.patch > > ... > > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > > From: Nathan Chancellor > > > Subject: riscv: avoid fortify warning in syscall_get_arguments() > > > > I do not think I made myself clear enough in my request when reading it > > back, so I do apologize for that. I need the diff at the end of [1] > > applied to syscallh-add-syscall_set_arguments.patch, not [2], which is a > > standalone patch for the existing syscall_get_arguments() that should go > > via the RISC-V tree because it is an existing issue (or at least be kept > > in standalone patch form). > > > > [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/20250408213131.GA2872426@ax162/ > > This fixed syscall_set_arguments()_ only. > > > [2]: https://lore.kernel.org/20250409-riscv-avoid-fortify-warning-syscall_get_arguments-v1-1-7853436d4755@kernel.org/ > > Whereas https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20250409003803.GA2876360@ax162 fixed > syscall_get_arguments() also. Yes, I merely meant for that to be a demonstration of what resolves both fortify warnings. > I queued both fixes as separate patches. And I reverted your mail > client's conversion of tabs to spaces and I added signoffs and all the > usual whatever. > > Please check mm-new once I get it pushed out. The fix for syscall_set_arguments() looks properly done in mm-unstable but I do not understand why the fix for syscall_get_arguments() is marked as another fix to be squashed into the patch that adds syscall_set_arguments()? It is an issue that is present in Linus's tree currently, not one that appears after Dmitry's patch. Just drop the patch that fixes syscall_get_arguments(), it is my understanding that the RISC-V folks will handle it (or if you are adamant about carrying it, keep it as a standalone patch, not one to be squashed). I just need syscall_set_arguments() fixed by you because you are carrying the patch that adds it per the plan at https://lore.kernel.org/20250409155207.GA1506425@ax162/ Cheers, Nathan