Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932996Ab1EXV3X (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 May 2011 17:29:23 -0400 Received: from wolverine01.qualcomm.com ([199.106.114.254]:45678 "EHLO wolverine01.qualcomm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757614Ab1EXV3U (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 May 2011 17:29:20 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,6356"; a="93391523" Message-ID: <4DDC232F.7080005@codeaurora.org> Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 14:29:19 -0700 From: Stephen Boyd User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686 (x86_64); en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Thunderbird/3.1.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew Morton CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, Intel Linux Wireless , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/9] strict user copy checks on x86_64 References: <1305244212-19183-1-git-send-email-sboyd@codeaurora.org> In-Reply-To: <1305244212-19183-1-git-send-email-sboyd@codeaurora.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1794 Lines: 42 Hi Andrew, (I don't know who to pick on sorry) On 05/12/2011 04:50 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote: > It turns out that strict user copy checks (also known as > CONFIG_DEBUG_STRICT_USER_COPY_CHECKS) isn't actually implemented > on x86_64 and thus we aren't catching potential security holes > at compile time. > > This series adds support for strict user copy checks on x86_64 > and silences all the benign warnings in the x86_64 allyesconfig. > > The final patch consolidates the config option as its duplicated > across mutliple arches. I don't know what tree this series should > go through so I tried to send the individual driver patches to the > respective maintainers. > > Stephen Boyd (9): > iwlegacy: Silence DEBUG_STRICT_USER_COPY_CHECKS=y warning > iwlwifi: Silence DEBUG_STRICT_USER_COPY_CHECKS=y warning > [SCSI] lpfc: Silence DEBUG_STRICT_USER_COPY_CHECKS=y warning > debugfs: Silence DEBUG_STRICT_USER_COPY_CHECKS=y warning > kprobes: Silence DEBUG_STRICT_USER_COPY_CHECKS=y warning > Bluetooth: Silence DEBUG_STRICT_USER_COPY_CHECKS=y warning > ASoC: Silence DEBUG_STRICT_USER_COPY_CHECKS=y warning > x86: Implement strict user copy checks for x86_64 > Consolidate CONFIG_DEBUG_STRICT_USER_COPY_CHECKS It looks like 1, 2, 4, 6, and 7 got picked up. Should I resend the left over patches with appropriate acked-bys and tags? Would it be appropriate to push this through your tree? -- Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/