From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Catalin Marinas Subject: Re: [PATCH v15 00/17] arm64: untag user pointers passed to the kernel Date: Thu, 23 May 2019 16:21:19 +0100 Message-ID: <20190523152118.t22z37mpqfwjjtkw@mbp> References: <20190517144931.GA56186@arrakis.emea.arm.com> <20190521182932.sm4vxweuwo5ermyd@mbp> <201905211633.6C0BF0C2@keescook> <20190522101110.m2stmpaj7seezveq@mbp> <20190522163527.rnnc6t4tll7tk5zw@mbp> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: enh Cc: Kees Cook , Evgenii Stepanov , Andrey Konovalov , Khalid Aziz , Linux ARM , Linux Memory Management List , LKML , amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, linux-media@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" , Vincenzo Frascino , Will Deacon , Mark Rutland , Andrew Morton , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Yishai Hadas List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 09:58:22AM -0700, enh wrote: > i was questioning the argument about the ioctl issues, and saying that > from my perspective, untagging bugs are not really any different than > any other kind of kernel bug. Once this series gets in, they are indeed just kernel bugs. What I want is an easier way to identify them, ideally before they trigger in the field. > i still don't see how this isn't just a regular testing/CI issue, the > same as any other kind of kernel bug. it's already the case that i can > get a bad kernel... The testing would have a smaller code coverage in terms of drivers, filesystems than something like a static checker (though one does not exclude the other). -- Catalin