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:   Wed, 5 Apr 2023 18:02:28 +0200
From:   Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To:     Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Cc:     Gregory Price <gourry.memverge@gmail.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, avagin@gmail.com, peterz@infradead.org,
        luto@kernel.org, krisman@collabora.com, tglx@linutronix.de,
        corbet@lwn.net, shuah@kernel.org, arnd@arndb.de,
        Gregory Price <gregory.price@memverge.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v15 2/4] syscall user dispatch: untag selector addresses
 before access_ok
Message-ID: <20230405160227.GA13943@redhat.com>
References: <20230330212121.1688-1-gregory.price@memverge.com>
 <20230330212121.1688-3-gregory.price@memverge.com>
 <ZCYP+4gRZDqC0lRo@arm.com>
 <20230404104506.GA24740@redhat.com>
 <ZCxfdC+v4v6EEy4v@arm.com>
 <ZC1UEK43yOsXKvi4@arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZC1UEK43yOsXKvi4@arm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Precedence: bulk

On 04/05, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>
> > Yes, from the security perspective, but there are ABI implications.

Thanks a lot for your explanations.

To be honest, I am still a bit confused... Will try to grep the relevant code.
But as for this patch, now I believe it is correct.

So, FWIW,

Acked-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>