Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752093AbaG1Xyn (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Jul 2014 19:54:43 -0400 Received: from mail-oi0-f52.google.com ([209.85.218.52]:45420 "EHLO mail-oi0-f52.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750981AbaG1Xyj (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Jul 2014 19:54:39 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <53D6E07F.7090806@zytor.com> References: <53D68F91.4000106@zytor.com> <53D6DE1E.1060501@zytor.com> <53D6E07F.7090806@zytor.com> Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 16:54:38 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: Mcou2ELHP4zx9cJIbdNjhWuAnKk Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/8] Two-phase seccomp and x86 tracing changes From: Kees Cook To: "H. Peter Anvin" Cc: linux-arch , Linux MIPS Mailing List , Will Drewry , "x86@kernel.org" , LKML , Andy Lutomirski , linux-security-module , Oleg Nesterov , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , Alexei Starovoitov Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 4:45 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > On 07/28/2014 04:42 PM, Kees Cook wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 4:34 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote: >>> On 07/28/2014 04:29 PM, Kees Cook wrote: >>>> On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 10:59 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote: >>>>> On 07/23/2014 12:20 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> It looks like patches 1-4 have landed here: >>>>>> >>>>>> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/kees/linux.git/log/?h=seccomp/fastpath >>>>>> >>>>>> hpa, what's the route forward for the x86 part? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I guess I should discuss this with Kees to figure out what makes most >>>>> sense. In the meantime, could you address Oleg's question? >>>> >>>> Since the x86 parts depend on the seccomp parts, I'm happy if you >>>> carry them instead of having them land from my tree. Otherwise I'm >>>> open to how to coordinate timing. >>>> >>> >>> You mean for me to carry the seccomp part as well? >> >> If that makes sense as far as the coordination, that's fine with me. >> Otherwise I'm not sure how x86 can build without having the seccomp >> changes in your tree. >> > > Exactly. What I guess I'll do is set up a separate tip branch for this, > pull your branch into it, and then put the x86 patches on top. Does > that make sense for everyone? Sounds good to me. Once Oleg and Andy are happy, we'll be set. -Kees -- Kees Cook Chrome OS Security -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/