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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20190523102256.29168-1-ard.biesheuvel@arm.com>
 <20190528100413.GA20809@fuggles.cambridge.arm.com> <20190624111600.b7e5kkfvuszj6522@willie-the-truck>
 <07e3d9ea-b917-2adb-6f88-0f1a31692d04@arm.com>
In-Reply-To: <07e3d9ea-b917-2adb-6f88-0f1a31692d04@arm.com>
From:   Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
Date:   Mon, 24 Jun 2019 16:29:39 +0200
Message-ID: <CAKv+Gu9VcXuz8P7-2=MZjDj-7nVOEA8FUE1fRYTvtt1mvt99Yw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] arm64: wire up VM_FLUSH_RESET_PERMS
To:     Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@arm.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Cc:     Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Nadav Amit <namit@vmware.com>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
        James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

(+ Catalin)

On Mon, 24 Jun 2019 at 13:23, Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@arm.com> 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:
> >>> Wire up the code introduced in v5.2 to manage the permissions
> >>> of executable vmalloc regions (and their linear aliases) more
> >>> strictly.
> >>>
> >>> One of the things that came up in the internal discussion is
> >>> whether non-x86 architectures have any benefit at all from the
> >>> lazy vunmap feature, and whether it would perhaps be better to
> >>> implement eager vunmap instead.
> >>>
> >>> Cc: Nadav Amit <namit@vmware.com>
> >>> Cc: Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com>
> >>> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
> >>> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
> >>> Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
> >>> Cc: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>
> >>> Cc: James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>
> >>>
> >>> 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@kernel.org>
> >
> > 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)