Received: by 2002:a25:4158:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id o85csp4797450yba; Tue, 30 Apr 2019 04:39:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyHhp1nsPdEHDoVALuvzDj6vUkfA0GJTmJIXiENsQudKnLeNU5uAFkRPujxAGGjRKq3s87N X-Received: by 2002:aa7:8dc7:: with SMTP id j7mr5179032pfr.82.1556624399823; Tue, 30 Apr 2019 04:39:59 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1556624399; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=x2SSaDI25ylev6/MOkjI5vmsVMC2E9e8M8GmGeoMn/s4H2AdPwv2NUBXI4szqC73+G SNIxTCph031YbpiafuVbCf6HDYI6drDdjapEDWv6bTcv2soqzRD8DH3hc9mRwPsS4l6D uTkP4OCwGpVLI6kSJ22Aem+EsbCwFvnnNY6N7Qs9anxGvCbKIH0XNsh5YXhm6ds53K8w CLvhCH5zObjkzLX5i3LSlidRvHkaZfdrTmBTkDtViyHeCQdNh8Qqb9o8+dFn1yzf3hEm yben+7Ug3LFtd60F1CS7Y0upH3L4AZhmvPE//rljhYeGSaaYrpZIorl3+JO9k/Ltxf/n Fu7Q== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:content-transfer-encoding :content-language:in-reply-to:mime-version:user-agent:date :message-id:from:references:cc:to:subject; bh=6qBaaSU0vAdQBQOva/LEuwPnyHGY0RZO7Fqdp4xD8tI=; b=vU5ETIVbYHx2JUMoXTMeynZ30ETU3oEUaG6kLFu4qEY0C9dZ79HuhAXz37AW9Lt6H6 XrlCWWPxBKvz0aCxqNuVbzo/M27uNbhDiWbyOLXrjA+h7gGpBqNgwc/GTTX1xDq6D6LB JVNMpu4K0c7pZ0yeCZTr10KhCqtSLq4VN2l+ESuh9Wr5GOaUk8hdUmlAOm9Ussjz5DfC 50auB8vgoOnVvv+56KVWs1MV/NJ5ayG+PzndyqEX9mVPcPNh7wTnHYaCCZymASRnJeEc c2K08l6dVRyjD0jbnCz7Rx1nd4z2hVG+vWAS+RRwqsUgZYYTsNXNo88/SKD/wJR5sMp3 qzmg== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id h24si34359808pgg.226.2019.04.30.04.39.44; Tue, 30 Apr 2019 04:39:59 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727571AbfD3LiX (ORCPT + 99 others); Tue, 30 Apr 2019 07:38:23 -0400 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:45200 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726648AbfD3LiW (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Apr 2019 07:38:22 -0400 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.72.51.249]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C47080D; Tue, 30 Apr 2019 04:38:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.1.196.75] (e110467-lin.cambridge.arm.com [10.1.196.75]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 164F23F5C1; Tue, 30 Apr 2019 04:38:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/26] arm64/iommu: improve mmap bounds checking To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Joerg Roedel , Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , Tom Lendacky , iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20190422175942.18788-1-hch@lst.de> <20190422175942.18788-3-hch@lst.de> <306b7a19-4eb5-d1d8-5250-40f3ba9bca16@arm.com> <20190429190120.GA5637@lst.de> From: Robin Murphy Message-ID: Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2019 12:38:19 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190429190120.GA5637@lst.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-GB Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 29/04/2019 20:01, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 01:35:46PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote: >> On 22/04/2019 18:59, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >>> The nr_pages checks should be done for all mmap requests, not just those >>> using remap_pfn_range. >> >> I think it probably makes sense now to just squash this with #22 one way or >> the other, but if you really really still want to keep it as a separate >> patch with a misleading commit message then I'm willing to keep my >> complaints to myself :) > > Well, I split this out in response to your earlier comments, so if you > prefer it squasheѕ back in I can do that.. AFAICS I only ever suggested splitting the original "fix and refactor" commit into the fix (patch #1) and the refactor - I think we've just ended up adding more "refactor" on top in the evolution of the series :) Robin.