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=-5.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=unavailable 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 54EA9C433E0 for ; Thu, 28 May 2020 09:16:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [203.11.71.2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CB529208E4 for ; Thu, 28 May 2020 09:16:12 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org CB529208E4 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=suse.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Received: from bilbo.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::3]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49Xhrm6v9SzDqV3 for ; Thu, 28 May 2020 19:16:08 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=suse.com (client-ip=195.135.220.15; helo=mx2.suse.de; envelope-from=pmladek@suse.com; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=suse.com Received: from mx2.suse.de (mx2.suse.de [195.135.220.15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49XhpH1kjczDqTq for ; Thu, 28 May 2020 19:13:57 +1000 (AEST) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.254]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id C186EAA7C; Thu, 28 May 2020 09:13:52 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 28 May 2020 11:13:52 +0200 From: Petr Mladek To: Michael Ellerman Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc/bpf: Enable bpf_probe_read{, str}() on powerpc again Message-ID: <20200528091351.GE3529@linux-b0ei> References: <20200527122844.19524-1-pmladek@suse.com> <87ftbkkh00.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87ftbkkh00.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Daniel Borkmann , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Alexei Starovoitov , Paul Mackerras , Masami Hiramatsu , Brendan Gregg , Miroslav Benes , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Christoph Hellwig Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" On Thu 2020-05-28 11:03:43, Michael Ellerman wrote: > Petr Mladek writes: > > The commit 0ebeea8ca8a4d1d453a ("bpf: Restrict bpf_probe_read{, str}() only > > to archs where they work") caused that bpf_probe_read{, str}() functions > > were not longer available on architectures where the same logical address > > might have different content in kernel and user memory mapping. These > > architectures should use probe_read_{user,kernel}_str helpers. > > > > For backward compatibility, the problematic functions are still available > > on architectures where the user and kernel address spaces are not > > overlapping. This is defined CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_NON_OVERLAPPING_ADDRESS_SPACE. > > > > At the moment, these backward compatible functions are enabled only > > on x86_64, arm, and arm64. Let's do it also on powerpc that has > > the non overlapping address space as well. > > > > Signed-off-by: Petr Mladek > > This seems like it should have a Fixes: tag and go into v5.7? Good point: Fixes: commit 0ebeea8ca8a4d1d4 ("bpf: Restrict bpf_probe_read{, str}() only to archs where they work") And yes, it should ideally go into v5.7 either directly or via stable. Should I resend the patch with Fixes and Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org #v45.7 lines, please? Best Regards, Petr