From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB07EC433B4 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 13:26:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CC80601FD for ; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 13:26:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S240953AbhDUN1T (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Apr 2021 09:27:19 -0400 Received: from wout4-smtp.messagingengine.com ([64.147.123.20]:59713 "EHLO wout4-smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S238455AbhDUN1T (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Apr 2021 09:27:19 -0400 Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51DD51E43; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 09:26:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 21 Apr 2021 09:26:46 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kroah.com; h= date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:in-reply-to; s=fm3; bh=Uirgx6kYJJn5vp34mmlGXzN32U/ aQTUucg5cNo0J12Y=; b=c+uPXeostgEKeXKK5o7zLqIdqPlMCD3kDr/zVPK4/LV z06losLpgcmqQFcG11ZQ4dh+dvWDq/NYJqdFIFCCjWEJQnevyGPY7PtcGb9UrtkN qryyNbIc37hxPkHXFBTMe6wYRvSMeP1PehyBL5miqQTyKPKrwB4H7oTi+4NRgwLa NHyUmyMj0uRunMCcaPx+qYaR+xwn2QpZV/kcojetM1jT9JqKp8j5MKc7MNp9Nx1b ptZnQWVReA3cHdbxSkLBBMoS8JWfjbA1/f79U5S4gYyRpzBZcKFITfa3MJK2nKec fY6nKih5rRtgnzgsdjZN05dv9ZfzZ7KbnUHFz06Rt9g== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=Uirgx6 kYJJn5vp34mmlGXzN32U/aQTUucg5cNo0J12Y=; b=C5p6nvSsy3K1yRwcZic/N/ FH3oo8Ak/Qi50YR3fAJ+1KJP0dfhHCvLMdM+44wgxWMpy1WR+Vl28mfxxayWB8l4 uuxlSebubuJVaee42Xa4S/st33uFuqhlBTCcmS5JKYwSjQcGDVOThgg6NkIVCIWN pQpUF331ljzalbH8K3/XvPMkRGJyIgzNB2LClWn2wAeYMb/meQNPzrdb7GPkf/3N ohTZGlxfJGAZHBscQBQftp1ewX4qzRJ97NTqrzfRVUflxLzgs3R8onee5mCOFIYx p/ijZSSCtredAfyAs8CLBZBaHHp5m4IQXcXCJBC5Pw2oiKq4cP7Qhzqu4VTOo/Mg == X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledrvddtkedgieehucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpeffhffvuffkfhggtggujgesthdtre dttddtvdenucfhrhhomhepifhrvghgucfmjfcuoehgrhgvgheskhhrohgrhhdrtghomheq necuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepveeuheejgfffgfeivddukedvkedtleelleeghfeljeeiue eggeevueduudekvdetnecukfhppeekfedrkeeirdejgedrieegnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfu ihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepghhrvghgsehkrhhorghhrdgtoh hm X-ME-Proxy: Received: from localhost (83-86-74-64.cable.dynamic.v4.ziggo.nl [83.86.74.64]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 6AA60108005B; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 09:26:45 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2021 15:26:43 +0200 From: Greg KH To: "Zidenberg, Tsahi" Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] fix userspace access on arm64 for linux 5.4 Message-ID: References: <56be4b97-8283-cf09-4dac-46d602cae97c@amazon.com> <66f9c439-13d1-1392-0d20-0c48fb9fdd60@amazon.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <66f9c439-13d1-1392-0d20-0c48fb9fdd60@amazon.com> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: stable@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 04:04:12PM +0300, Zidenberg, Tsahi wrote: > > > On 13/04/2021 10:27, Greg KH wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 10:46:41PM +0300, Zidenberg, Tsahi wrote: > >> The original bug that I was working on: command line parameters don't > >> appear when snooping execve using bpf on arm64. > > Has this ever worked? If not, it's not really a regression that needs > > to be fixed, just use a newer kernel version, right? > It's not so much a regression between old and new kernels, as it is > a regression when changing architectures. The same API works on x86, > but not on arm64 (in x86 - you can access userspace with a kernelspace > access). What API are you talking about here? Different CPU architectures support different things. Some do not support ebpf at all, is that a regression? No. > Multiple Linux distributions support both x86 and arm64, and some of > these choose to keep with 5.4 LTS Linux kernel. I think these > distributions should expect the same experience across architectures. Since when has that ever been a requirement of Linux? That is not a requirement of the stable kernel trees either, please see our very simple set of rules. still confused as to what you are trying to do here, greg k-h