(+ Catalin) On Mon, 24 Jun 2019 at 13:23, Ard Biesheuvel <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> > >>> Cc: Rick Edgecombe <[email protected]> > >>> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]> > >>> Cc: Andrew Morton <[email protected]> > >>> Cc: Will Deacon <[email protected]> > >>> Cc: Masami Hiramatsu <[email protected]> > >>> Cc: James Morse <[email protected]> > >>> > >>> 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 <[email protected]> > > > > 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)
