From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Catalin Marinas Subject: Re: [PATCH v16 02/16] arm64: untag user pointers in access_ok and __uaccess_mask_ptr Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2019 12:04:44 +0100 Message-ID: <20190612110443.GD28951@C02TF0J2HF1T.local> References: <4327b260fb17c4776a1e3c844f388e4948cfb747.1559580831.git.andreyknvl@google.com> <20190610175326.GC25803@arrakis.emea.arm.com> <20190611145720.GA63588@arrakis.emea.arm.com> <20190611173903.4icrfmoyfvms35cy@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: Andrey Konovalov Cc: Mark Rutland , kvm@vger.kernel.org, Szabolcs Nagy , Will Deacon , dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, Linux Memory Management List , Khalid Aziz , "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" , Felix Kuehling , Vincenzo Frascino , Jacob Bramley , Leon Romanovsky , linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, Christoph Hellwig , Jason Gunthorpe , Dmitry Vyukov , Dave Martin , Evgeniy Stepanov , linux-media@vger.kerne List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 01:03:10PM +0200, Andrey Konovalov wrote: > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 7:39 PM Catalin Marinas wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 07:09:46PM +0200, Andrey Konovalov wrote: > > > Should I drop access_ok() change from my patch, since yours just reverts it? > > > > Not necessary, your patch just relaxes the ABI for all apps, mine > > tightens it. You could instead move the untagging to __range_ok() and > > rebase my patch accordingly. > > OK, will do. I'll also add a comment next to TIF_TAGGED_ADDR as Vincenzo asked. Thanks. -- Catalin