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;
Date:   Wed, 29 May 2019 13:16:09 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To:     Alexandre Ghiti <alex@ghiti.fr>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
        Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>,
        Paul Burton <paul.burton@mips.com>,
        James Hogan <jhogan@kernel.org>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@sifive.com>,
        Albert Ou <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/14] Provide generic top-down mmap layout functions
Message-ID: <201905291313.1E6BD2DFB@keescook>
References: <20190526134746.9315-1-alex@ghiti.fr>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190526134746.9315-1-alex@ghiti.fr>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 09:47:32AM -0400, Alexandre Ghiti wrote:
> This series introduces generic functions to make top-down mmap layout
> easily accessible to architectures, in particular riscv which was
> the initial goal of this series.
> The generic implementation was taken from arm64 and used successively
> by arm, mips and finally riscv.

As I've mentioned before, I think this is really great. Making this
common has long been on my TODO list. Thank you for the work! (I've sent
separate review emails for individual patches where my ack wasn't
already present...)

>   - There is no common API to determine if a process is 32b, so I came up with
>     !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_64BIT) || is_compat_task() in [PATCH v4 12/14].

Do we need a common helper for this idiom? (Note that I don't think it's
worth blocking the series for this.)

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook