+ Dan and sma...@vger.kernel.org
Hi Andrew,
I am adding Dan to this thread since he is the smatch maintainer, and the
sma...@vger.kernel.org list.
@Dan and @sma...@vger.kernel.org: a reference to the beginning of this thread
can be found at [1].
[1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/6/19/376
On
On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 06:45:03PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> Cc'ing Luc (sparse maintainer) who's been involved in the past
> discussions around static checking of user pointers:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20180905190316.a34yycthgbamx2t3@ltop.local/
>
> So
Hi Andrew,
Cc'ing Luc (sparse maintainer) who's been involved in the past
discussions around static checking of user pointers:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20180905190316.a34yycthgbamx2t3@ltop.local/
So I think the difference here from the previous approach is that we
explicitly
Hello,
The proposed introduction of a relaxed ARM64 ABI [1] will allow tagged memory
addresses to be passed through the user-kernel syscall ABI boundary. Tagged
memory addresses are those which contain a non-zero top byte (the hardware
has always ignored this top byte due to TCR_EL1.TBI0) and may
4 matches
Mail list logo
