On 10/23/23 7:59 PM, Yuran Pereira wrote:
Since some malloc calls in bpf_iter may at times fail,
this patch adds the appropriate fail checks, and ensures that
any previously allocated resource is appropriately destroyed
before returning the function.
Signed-off-by: Yuran Pereira
---
Hello,
On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 03:18:52PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> I have a second thought after taking a further look at that. First of all,
> cpuset_allowed_mask isn't relevant here and the mask can certainly contain
> offline CPUs. So cpu_possible_mask is the proper fallback.
>
> With the
Hello, Waiman.
On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 02:24:00PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> If you mean saving the exclusion cpumask no matter who the caller is, we can
> add another exclusion cpumask to save it and expose it to sysfs. This should
> be done in the first workqueue patch, not as part of this
Since some malloc calls in bpf_iter may at times fail,
this patch adds the appropriate fail checks, and ensures that
any previously allocated resource is appropriately destroyed
before returning the function.
Signed-off-by: Yuran Pereira
---
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpf_iter.c |
On Fri, 2023-10-20 at 15:20 -0700, Nhat Pham wrote:
>
> This test add a sanity check that ensure zswap storing works as
> intended.
>
> Signed-off-by: Nhat Pham
>
Acked-by: Rik van Riel
--
All Rights Reversed.
> From: Baolu Lu
> Sent: Monday, October 23, 2023 8:18 PM
>
> On 2023/10/23 19:15, Liu, Yi L wrote:
> >> I would also prefer to introduce is_nested_parent_domain to the user
> >> domain allocation patch (patch 7/8). This field should be checked when
> >> allocating a nested user domain.
> > A
In some conditions, background processes in udpgro don't have enough
time to set up the sockets. When foreground processes start, this
results in the bad GRO lookup test freezing or reporting that it
received 0 gro segments.
To fix this, increase the time given to background processes to complete
On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 11:37 AM Peter Xu wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 10:43:49AM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > > Maybe we should follow what it does with mremap()? Then your current code
> > > is fine. Maybe that's the better start.
> >
> > I think that was the original intention,
On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 8:53 AM David Hildenbrand wrote:
>
> On 23.10.23 14:29, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> >> +
> >> +/* Only allow remapping if both are mlocked or both aren't */
> >> +if ((src_vma->vm_flags & VM_LOCKED) != (dst_vma->vm_flags &
> >> VM_LOCKED))
> >> +return
On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 5:29 AM David Hildenbrand wrote:
>
> Focusing on validate_remap_areas():
>
> > +
> > +static int validate_remap_areas(struct vm_area_struct *src_vma,
> > + struct vm_area_struct *dst_vma)
> > +{
> > + /* Only allow remapping if both have the
On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 10:59:35AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 22, 2023 at 05:18:03PM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote:
>
> > > > And where should we add this comment? Kdoc of
> > > > the alloc uAPI?
> > >
> > > Maybe right in front of the only enforce_cc op callback?
> >
> > OK. How
On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 02:53:20AM +, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> > From: Nicolin Chen
> > Sent: Monday, October 23, 2023 8:18 AM
> >
> > On Sat, Oct 21, 2023 at 01:38:04PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 11:59:13AM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Oct 20, 2023
On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 10:43:49AM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > Maybe we should follow what it does with mremap()? Then your current code
> > is fine. Maybe that's the better start.
>
> I think that was the original intention, basically treating remapping
> as a write operation. Maybe I
On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 04:32:22PM +, Edgecombe, Rick P wrote:
> On Mon, 2023-10-23 at 14:20 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> +Some security folks
I *think* I captured everyone for future versions but I might've missed
some, it's a long Cc list.
> > Add parameters to clone3() specifying the
On Thu, Oct 19, 2023 at 4:06 PM Linus Torvalds
wrote:
>
> On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 at 15:47, Pedro Falcato wrote:
> > >
> > > For mprotect()/mmap(), is Linux implementation limited by POSIX ?
> >
> > No. POSIX works merely as a baseline that UNIX systems aim towards.
> > You can (and very frequently
On Sun, Oct 22, 2023 at 10:02 AM Peter Xu wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 19, 2023 at 02:24:06PM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 3:00 PM Peter Xu wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sun, Oct 08, 2023 at 11:42:27PM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > > > From: Andrea Arcangeli
> > > >
> >
On Thu, Oct 19, 2023 at 3:47 PM Pedro Falcato wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 19, 2023 at 6:30 PM Jeff Xu wrote:
> >
> > Hi Pedro
> >
> > Some followup on mmap() + mprotect():
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 11:20 AM Jeff Xu wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 3:35 PM Pedro Falcato
> > > wrote:
On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 9:36 AM David Hildenbrand wrote:
>
> On 23.10.23 14:03, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > On 22.10.23 17:46, Peter Xu wrote:
> >> On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 07:16:19PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> >>> These are rather the vibes I'm getting from Peter. "Why rename it, could
>
On 23.10.23 14:03, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 22.10.23 17:46, Peter Xu wrote:
On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 07:16:19PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
These are rather the vibes I'm getting from Peter. "Why rename it, could
confuse people because the original patches are old", "Why exclude it if it
+Some security folks
On Mon, 2023-10-23 at 14:20 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> Unlike with the normal stack there is no API for configuring the the
> shadow
> stack for a new thread, instead the kernel will dynamically allocate
> a new
> shadow stack with the same size as the normal stack. This
On 23.10.23 14:29, David Hildenbrand wrote:
+
+ /* Only allow remapping if both are mlocked or both aren't */
+ if ((src_vma->vm_flags & VM_LOCKED) != (dst_vma->vm_flags & VM_LOCKED))
+ return -EINVAL;
+
+ if (!(src_vma->vm_flags & VM_WRITE) || !(dst_vma->vm_flags
On 20/10/23 06:21, Michał Winiarski wrote:
> Clang uses a different set of CLI args for coverage, and the output
> needs to be processed by a different set of tools.
> Update the Makefile and add an example of usage in kunit docs.
Great change! It's great not to rely on older versions of GCC
On 10/23/23 1:12 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> ip addr add ...
>
> Why not "address" then? :)
no objection from me.
> What's wrong with "a"?
1-letter commands can be ambiguous. Test scripts should be clear and
obvious.
On 10/23/23 6:34 AM, Swarup Laxman Kotiaklapudi wrote:
> Change ifconfig with ip command,
> on a system where ifconfig is
> not used this script will not
> work correcly.
>
> Test result with this patchset:
>
> sudo make TARGETS="net" kselftest
>
> TAP version 13
> 1..1
> timeout set to
On Sun, Oct 22, 2023 at 05:18:03PM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> > > And where should we add this comment? Kdoc of
> > > the alloc uAPI?
> >
> > Maybe right in front of the only enforce_cc op callback?
>
> OK. How about this? Might be a bit verbose though:
> /*
>*
Add basic test coverage for specifying the shadow stack for a newly
created thread via clone3(), including coverage of the newly extended
argument structure. We detect support for shadow stacks on the running
system by attempting to allocate a shadow stack page during initialisation
using
In order to make it easier to add more configuration for the tests and
more support for runtime detection of when tests can be run pass the
structure describing the tests into test_clone3() rather than picking
the arguments out of it and have that function do all the per-test work.
No functional
The clone_args structure is extensible, with the syscall passing in the
length of the structure. Inside the kernel we use copy_struct_from_user()
to read the struct but this has the unfortunate side effect of silently
accepting some overrun in the structure size providing the extra data is
all
Since multiple architectures have support for shadow stacks and we need to
select support for this feature in several places in the generic code
provide a generic config option that the architectures can select.
Suggested-by: David Hildenbrand
Signed-off-by: Mark Brown
---
arch/x86/Kconfig |
Unlike with the normal stack there is no API for configuring the the shadow
stack for a new thread, instead the kernel will dynamically allocate a new
shadow stack with the same size as the normal stack. This appears to be due
to the shadow stack series having been in development since before the
The kernel has recently added support for shadow stacks, currently
x86 only using their CET feature but both arm64 and RISC-V have
equivalent features (GCS and Zisslpcfi respectively), I am actively
working on GCS[1]. With shadow stacks the hardware maintains an
additional stack containing only
Change ifconfig with ip command,
on a system where ifconfig is
not used this script will not
work correcly.
Test result with this patchset:
sudo make TARGETS="net" kselftest
TAP version 13
1..1
timeout set to 1500
selftests: net: route_localnet.sh
run arp_announce test
Focusing on validate_remap_areas():
+
+static int validate_remap_areas(struct vm_area_struct *src_vma,
+ struct vm_area_struct *dst_vma)
+{
+ /* Only allow remapping if both have the same access and protection */
+ if ((src_vma->vm_flags &
On 2023/10/23 19:15, Liu, Yi L wrote:
I would also prefer to introduce is_nested_parent_domain to the user
domain allocation patch (patch 7/8). This field should be checked when
allocating a nested user domain.
A ctually, no need. This should be a common check, so iommufd core already
has the
On 22.10.23 17:46, Peter Xu wrote:
On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 07:16:19PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
These are rather the vibes I'm getting from Peter. "Why rename it, could
confuse people because the original patches are old", "Why exclude it if it
has been included in the original patches".
> From: Baolu Lu
> Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2023 11:24 AM
>
> On 10/20/23 5:32 PM, Yi Liu wrote:
> > From: Lu Baolu
> >
> > When remapping hardware is configured by system software in scalable mode
> > as Nested (PGTT=011b) and with PWSNP field Set in the PASID-table-entry,
> > it may Set
> From: Baolu Lu
> Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2023 11:08 AM
>
> On 10/20/23 5:32 PM, Yi Liu wrote:
> > From: Lu Baolu
> >
> > This adds the support for IOMMU_HWPT_DATA_VTD_S1 type.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Lu Baolu
> > Signed-off-by: Yi Liu
> > ---
> > drivers/iommu/intel/iommu.c | 39
> From: Baolu Lu
> Sent: Friday, October 20, 2023 7:49 PM
>
> On 2023/10/20 17:32, Yi Liu wrote:
> > From: Lu Baolu
> >
> > This adds helper for accepting user parameters and allocate a nested
> > domain.
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Kevin Tian
> > Signed-off-by: Jacob Pan
> > Signed-off-by: Lu Baolu
>
> On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 9:06 AM Tao Lyu wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I found the backtracking logic of the eBPF verifier is flawed
>> when meeting 1) normal load and store instruction or
>> 2) atomic memory instructions.
>>
>> # Normal load and store
>>
>> Here, I show one case about the normal
Sun, Oct 22, 2023 at 07:50:52PM CEST, dsah...@kernel.org wrote:
>On 10/22/23 5:31 AM, Swarup Laxman Kotiaklapudi wrote:
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/net/route_localnet.sh
>> b/tools/testing/selftests/net/route_localnet.sh
>> index 116bfeab72fa..3ab9beb4462c 100755
>> ---
40 matches
Mail list logo
