Re: [PATCH v26 00/28] riscv control-flow integrity for usermode

Zong Li
2026-01-21T01:32:34Z

On Thu, Jan 8, 2026 at 11:10 PM Deepak Gupta <debug@rivosinc.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> I have a bugfix for a bug reported by Jesse Huang (thanks Jesse) in riscv
> implementation of `map_shadow_stack`.
>
> Should I send a new series or only the bugfix-patch for implementation
> of `map_shadow_stack`
>

Hi Deepak,
Not sure if I missed the bugfix patch, I couldn't find it on the
mailing list. Could I know have you submitted it? If so, could you
please point me where the patch is?
Thanks

> Let me know. Thanks.
>
> -Deepak
>
> -Deepak
>
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 12, 2025 at 10:33 AM Deepak Gupta <debug@rivosinc.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 12, 2025 at 01:30:29AM -0700, Paul Walmsley wrote:
> > >On Thu, 11 Dec 2025, Deepak Gupta via B4 Relay wrote:
> > >
> > >> v26: CONFIG_RISCV_USER_CFI depends on CONFIG_MMU (dependency of shadow stack
> > >> on MMU). Used b4 to pick tags, apparantly it messed up some tag picks. Fixing it
> > >
> > >Deepak: I'm now (at least) the third person to tell you to stop resending
> > >this entire series over and over again.
> >
> > To be very honest I also feel very bad doing and DOSing the lists. Sorry to you
> > and everyone else.
> >
> > But I have been sitting on this patch series for last 3-4 merge windows with
> > patches being exactly same/similar. So I have been a little more than desperate
> > to get it in.
> >
> > I really haven't had any meaningful feedback on patch series except stalling
> > just before each merge window for reasons which really shouldn't stall its
> > merge. Sure that's the nature of open source development and it's maintainer's
> > call at the end of the day. And I am new to this. I'll improve.
> >
> > >
> > >First, a modified version of the CFI v23 series was ALREADY SITTING IN
> > >LINUX-NEXT. So there's no reason you should be resending the entire
> > >series, UNLESS your intention for me is to drop the entire existing series
> > >and wait for another merge window.
> > >
> > >Second: when someone asks you questions about an individual patch, and you
> > >want to answer those questions, it's NOT GOOD for you to resend the entire
> > >28 series as the response! You are DDOSing a bunch of lists and E-mail
> > >inboxes. Just answer the question in a single E-mail. If you want to
> > >update a single patch, just send that one patch.
> >
> > Noted. I wasn't sure about it. I'll explicitly ask next time if you want me to
> > send another one.
> >
> > >
> > >If you don't start paying attention to these rules then people are going
> > >to start ignoring you -- at best! -- and it's going to give the entire
> > >community a bad reputation.
> >
> > Even before this, this patch series has been ignored largely. I don't know
> > how to get attention. All I wanted was either feedback or get it in. And as I
> > said I've been desparate to get it in. Also as I said, I'll improve.
> >
> > >
> > >Please acknowledge that you understand this,
> >
> > ACKed.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >- Paul