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;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/14] Provide generic top-down mmap layout functions
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
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
References: <20190526134746.9315-1-alex@ghiti.fr>
 <201905291313.1E6BD2DFB@keescook>
From:   Alex Ghiti <alex@ghiti.fr>
Message-ID: <d4e04178-e6f3-6d11-4ab8-9be7cf8ae87a@ghiti.fr>
Date:   Fri, 31 May 2019 01:04:55 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <201905291313.1E6BD2DFB@keescook>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: sv-FI
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 5/29/19 4:16 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> 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...)


Thanks :)


>>    - 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.)


Each architecture has its own way of finding that out, it might be 
interesting if there are other
places in generic code to propose something in that sense.
I will search for such places if they exist and come back with something.

Thanks Kees for your time,

Alex


>
> -Kees
>