From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Rutland Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] KASAN: clean stale poison upon cold re-entry to kernel Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 14:49:27 +0000 Message-ID: <20160303144927.GD19139@leverpostej> References: <1456928778-22491-1-git-send-email-mark.rutland@arm.com> <20160303120227.GA2484@gmail.com> <20160303123809.GA19139@leverpostej> <56D84A79.2030303@virtuozzo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <56D84A79.2030303@virtuozzo.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Andrey Ryabinin Cc: Ingo Molnar , akpm@linux-foundation.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, glider@google.com, lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com, mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org, will.deacon@arm.com List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 05:30:17PM +0300, Andrey Ryabinin wrote: > On 03/03/2016 03:38 PM, Mark Rutland wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 01:02:27PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > >>> > >>> Mark Rutland (3): > >>> kasan: add functions to clear stack poison > >>> sched/kasan: remove stale KASAN poison after hotplug > >>> arm64: kasan: clear stale stack poison > >>> > >>> arch/arm64/kernel/sleep.S | 4 ++++ > >>> include/linux/kasan.h | 6 +++++- > >>> kernel/sched/core.c | 3 +++ > >>> mm/kasan/kasan.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++ > >>> 4 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > >> > >> Looks good to me - via which tree would you like to see this merged upstream? > > > > I'd prefer the arm64 tree as arm64 is (the most) affected by the issue > > in practice. > > > > I'm happy for this to go via another tree if that's simpler; I'm not > > aware of anything that's likely to conflict in the arm64 tree. > > > > Catalin, Andrey, Andrew, any preference? > > > > I don't have any. arm64 tree is fine by me. > > For the patchset: > > Reviewed-by: Andrey Ryabinin > Cheers! Following [1], I intend to change patch 1 to start at task_stack_page(t) rather than task_thread_info(task) + 1, to keep things simple. I assume that your Reviewed-by would still apply in that case? Thanks, Mark. [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/3/2/428 From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:37616 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758007AbcCCOth (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Mar 2016 09:49:37 -0500 Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 14:49:27 +0000 From: Mark Rutland Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] KASAN: clean stale poison upon cold re-entry to kernel Message-ID: <20160303144927.GD19139@leverpostej> References: <1456928778-22491-1-git-send-email-mark.rutland@arm.com> <20160303120227.GA2484@gmail.com> <20160303123809.GA19139@leverpostej> <56D84A79.2030303@virtuozzo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <56D84A79.2030303@virtuozzo.com> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Andrey Ryabinin Cc: Ingo Molnar , akpm@linux-foundation.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, glider@google.com, lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com, mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org, will.deacon@arm.com Message-ID: <20160303144927.OXyeKEfwEP84ZdtJ8_ZuNlsRRhsy7-1zfaq7UkkSFS4@z> On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 05:30:17PM +0300, Andrey Ryabinin wrote: > On 03/03/2016 03:38 PM, Mark Rutland wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 01:02:27PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > >>> > >>> Mark Rutland (3): > >>> kasan: add functions to clear stack poison > >>> sched/kasan: remove stale KASAN poison after hotplug > >>> arm64: kasan: clear stale stack poison > >>> > >>> arch/arm64/kernel/sleep.S | 4 ++++ > >>> include/linux/kasan.h | 6 +++++- > >>> kernel/sched/core.c | 3 +++ > >>> mm/kasan/kasan.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++ > >>> 4 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > >> > >> Looks good to me - via which tree would you like to see this merged upstream? > > > > I'd prefer the arm64 tree as arm64 is (the most) affected by the issue > > in practice. > > > > I'm happy for this to go via another tree if that's simpler; I'm not > > aware of anything that's likely to conflict in the arm64 tree. > > > > Catalin, Andrey, Andrew, any preference? > > > > I don't have any. arm64 tree is fine by me. > > For the patchset: > > Reviewed-by: Andrey Ryabinin > Cheers! Following [1], I intend to change patch 1 to start at task_stack_page(t) rather than task_thread_info(task) + 1, to keep things simple. I assume that your Reviewed-by would still apply in that case? Thanks, Mark. [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/3/2/428