[PATCH v6sub1 00/11] arm64: split linear and kernel mappings

[catalin.marinas@arm.com (Catalin Marinas)]

On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 03:29:13PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 19 February 2016 at 15:27, Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> wrote:
> > On 19 February 2016 at 15:25, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 09:05:25AM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> >>> So it appears that akpm will need to drop that patch anyway, as he
> >>> won't be able to carry an updated version since he does not have the
> >>> UAO patches. That means it probably makes even more sense to take
> >>> those through the arm64 tree as well (minus the x86 one, which has a
> >>> conflict now as well). In fact, perhaps it makes sense to only take
> >>> the base patch and the arm64 patch, and I can send the remaining ones
> >>> to the various maintainers (or akpm) for v4.7
> >>
> >> Or we make BUILDTIME_EXTABLE_SORT depend on !RANDOMIZE_BASE until we
> >> sort out the extable patches.
> >
> > That would still result in breakage once the current version queued by
> > akpm hits mainline.
> 
> ... or in other words, the breakage is already in -next. This is
> completely unrelated to the sorting, btw, but due to the difference
> between relative/absolute

Ah, I now realised that it was only working fine for me before merging
the EFI patches to actually do the base randomisation. Once we fully
randomise the load address, we must have relative extable.

Is your branch updated with the patches needed for arm64 (against
for-next/core)?

-- 
Catalin