Re: [PATCH 0/4] arm64: wire up VM_FLUSH_RESET_PERMS

[Ard Biesheuvel]

On Mon, 24 Jun 2019 at 19:14, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 04:29:39PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > On Mon, 24 Jun 2019 at 13:23, Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On 6/24/19 1:16 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > > On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 11:04:20AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > >> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 11:22:52AM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > > >>> Ard Biesheuvel (4):
> > > >>>    arm64: module: create module allocations without exec permissions
> > > >>>    arm64/mm: wire up CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_SET_DIRECT_MAP
> > > >>>    arm64/kprobes: set VM_FLUSH_RESET_PERMS on kprobe instruction pages
> > > >>>    arm64: bpf: do not allocate executable memory
> > > >>>
> > > >>>   arch/arm64/Kconfig                  |  1 +
> > > >>>   arch/arm64/include/asm/cacheflush.h |  3 ++
> > > >>>   arch/arm64/kernel/module.c          |  4 +-
> > > >>>   arch/arm64/kernel/probes/kprobes.c  |  4 +-
> > > >>>   arch/arm64/mm/pageattr.c            | 48 ++++++++++++++++----
> > > >>>   arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c       |  2 +-
> > > >>>   mm/vmalloc.c                        | 11 -----
> > > >>>   7 files changed, 50 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks, this all looks good to me. I can get pick this up for 5.2 if
> > > >> Rick's fixes [1] land soon enough.
> > > >
> > > > Bah, I missed these landing in -rc5 and I think it's a bit too late for
> > > > us to take this for 5.2. now particularly with our limited ability to
> > > > fix any late regressions that might arise.
> > > >
> > > > In which case, Catalin, please can you take these for 5.3? You might run
> > > > into some testing failures with for-next/core due to the late of Rick's
> > > > fixes, but linux-next should be alright and I don't think you'll get any
> > > > conflicts.
> > > >
> > > > Acked-by: Will Deacon <will@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > Ard: are you ok with that?
> > >
> > > That is fine, although I won't be around to pick up the pieces by the
> > > time the merge window opens. Also, I'd like to follow up on the lazy
> > > vunmap thing for non-x86, but perhaps we can talk about this at plumbers?
> >
> > Actually, you will run into a couple of conflicts. Let me know if you
> > want me to respin (although they still won't apply cleanly to both
> > for-next/core and -next)
>
> I queued them in for-next/core (and fixed a minor conflict). Thanks.
>

OK, in that case, you will get a conflict in -next on the hunk against
mm/vmalloc.c in the second patch. Just FYI ...