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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230629184151.888604958@linuxfoundation.org> <CA+G9fYsM2s3q1k=+wHszvNbkKbHGe1pskkffWvaGXjYrp6qR=g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=whaO3RZmKj8NDjs4f6JEwuwQWWesOfFu-URzOqTkyPoxw@mail.gmail.com>
 <2023063001-overlying-browse-de1a@gregkh> <0b2aefa4-7407-4936-6604-dedfb1614483@gmx.de>
 <5fd98a09-4792-1433-752d-029ae3545168@gmx.de> <CAHk-=wiHs1cL2Fb90NXVhtQsMuu+OLHB4rSDsPVe0ALmbvZXZQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wiHs1cL2Fb90NXVhtQsMuu+OLHB4rSDsPVe0ALmbvZXZQ@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Sun, 2 Jul 2023 16:30:40 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wj=0jkhj2=HkHVdezvuzV-djLsnyeE5zFfnXxgtS2MXFQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6.4 00/28] 6.4.1-rc1 review - hppa argument list too long
To:     Helge Deller <deller@gmx.de>
Cc:     stable@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux@roeck-us.net,
        linux-parisc <linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        John David Anglin <dave.anglin@bell.net>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="00000000000021bec905ff897138"
Precedence: bulk

--00000000000021bec905ff897138
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Sun, 2 Jul 2023 at 15:45, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> Would you mind just verifying that yes, that commit on mainline is
> broken for you, and the previous one works?

Also, while I looked at it again, and still didn't understand why
parisc would be different here, I *did* realize that because parisc
has a stack that grows up, the debug warning I added for GUP won't
trigger.

So if I got that execve() logic wrong for STACK_GROWSUP (which I
clearly must have), then exactly because it's grows-up, a GUP failure
wouldn't warn about not expanding the stack.

IOW, would you mind applying something like this on top of the current
kernel, and let me know if it warns?

.. and here I thought ia64 would be the pain-point. Silly me.

                  Linus

--00000000000021bec905ff897138
Content-Type: text/x-patch; charset="US-ASCII"; name="patch.diff"
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="patch.diff"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-ID: <f_ljm2eq3m0>
X-Attachment-Id: f_ljm2eq3m0
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--00000000000021bec905ff897138--