Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Thu, 5 May 2022 09:25:17 +0100
From:   Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
To:     Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Cc:     Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        alex.popov@linux.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, luto@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/13] arm64: stackleak: fix current_top_of_stack()
Message-ID: <20220505082517.GA21170@willie-the-truck>
References: <20220427173128.2603085-1-mark.rutland@arm.com>
 <20220427173128.2603085-2-mark.rutland@arm.com>
 <YnKsvNtIlE6cZEOa@arm.com>
 <202205041200.147A737@keescook>
 <YnLaOw49WTbhmflw@arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YnLaOw49WTbhmflw@arm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, May 04, 2022 at 08:55:39PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Wed, May 04, 2022 at 12:01:11PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > On Wed, May 04, 2022 at 05:41:32PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 06:31:16PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > > [...]
> > > > Fixes: 0b3e336601b82c6a ("arm64: Add support for STACKLEAK gcc plugin")
> > > > Signed-off-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
> > > > Cc: Alexander Popov <alex.popov@linux.com>
> > > > Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
> > > > Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
> > > > Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
> > > > Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
> > > > Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
> > > 
> > > I thought this was queued already but I couldn't find it in -next. So:
> > > 
> > > Acked-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
> > 
> > Should this patch go via the arm64 tree for -rc6, or should I just carry
> > it as part of the overall stackleak series?
> 
> I'll leave this up to Will (we take turns in managing the kernel
> releases) but it doesn't look urgent at all to me since it fixes a
> commit in 4.19.

Agreed, and nobody has actually experienced a problem with the current code
afaict, so I'd prefer to leave this with the rest of the series rather than
run the risk of a late regression.

Will