Re: Linux 4.9.93

On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 10:02 AM Greg Hackmann wrote: > Sami, what are the plans for upstreaming this work? CFI is a clang-specific feature that depends on LTO. Based on the earlier LTO discussion, we decided to collect some more evidence that clang's LTO doesn't actually

Re: Linux 4.9.93

On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 10:02 AM Greg Hackmann wrote: > Sami, what are the plans for upstreaming this work? CFI is a clang-specific feature that depends on LTO. Based on the earlier LTO discussion, we decided to collect some more evidence that clang's LTO doesn't actually break anything in the

Re: Linux 4.9.93

On 04/09/2018 04:41 AM, Greg KH wrote: > On Mon, Apr 09, 2018 at 06:57:51PM +0900, Jean-Baptiste Theou wrote: >> On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 11:49:37 +0200 >> Ard Biesheuvel wrote: >> >>> On 9 April 2018 at 11:30, Greg KH wrote: On Mon, Apr 09,

Re: Linux 4.9.93

On 04/09/2018 04:41 AM, Greg KH wrote: > On Mon, Apr 09, 2018 at 06:57:51PM +0900, Jean-Baptiste Theou wrote: >> On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 11:49:37 +0200 >> Ard Biesheuvel wrote: >> >>> On 9 April 2018 at 11:30, Greg KH wrote: On Mon, Apr 09, 2018 at 06:05:34PM +0900, Jean-Baptiste Theou wrote:

Re: Linux 4.9.93

On Mon, Apr 09, 2018 at 06:57:51PM +0900, Jean-Baptiste Theou wrote: > On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 11:49:37 +0200 > Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > > On 9 April 2018 at 11:30, Greg KH wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 09, 2018 at 06:05:34PM +0900, Jean-Baptiste

Re: Linux 4.9.93

On Mon, Apr 09, 2018 at 06:57:51PM +0900, Jean-Baptiste Theou wrote: > On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 11:49:37 +0200 > Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > > On 9 April 2018 at 11:30, Greg KH wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 09, 2018 at 06:05:34PM +0900, Jean-Baptiste Theou wrote: > > >> Hi, > > >> > > >> After this

Re: Linux 4.9.93

On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 11:07:41 +0100 Mark Rutland wrote: > On Mon, Apr 09, 2018 at 06:57:51PM +0900, Jean-Baptiste Theou wrote: > > On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 11:49:37 +0200 > > Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > > > > On 9 April 2018 at 11:30, Greg KH

Re: Linux 4.9.93

On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 11:07:41 +0100 Mark Rutland wrote: > On Mon, Apr 09, 2018 at 06:57:51PM +0900, Jean-Baptiste Theou wrote: > > On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 11:49:37 +0200 > > Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > > > > On 9 April 2018 at 11:30, Greg KH wrote: > > > > On Mon, Apr 09, 2018 at 06:05:34PM +0900,

Re: Linux 4.9.93

On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 12:25:07 +0200 Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > On 9 Apr 2018, at 11:57, Jean-Baptiste Theou wrote: > > > > On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 11:49:37 +0200 > > Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > > >>> On 9 April 2018 at 11:30,

Re: Linux 4.9.93

On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 12:25:07 +0200 Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > On 9 Apr 2018, at 11:57, Jean-Baptiste Theou wrote: > > > > On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 11:49:37 +0200 > > Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > > >>> On 9 April 2018 at 11:30, Greg KH wrote: > On Mon, Apr 09, 2018 at 06:05:34PM +0900,

Re: Linux 4.9.93

> On 9 Apr 2018, at 11:57, Jean-Baptiste Theou wrote: > > On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 11:49:37 +0200 > Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > >>> On 9 April 2018 at 11:30, Greg KH wrote: On Mon, Apr 09, 2018 at 06:05:34PM +0900,

Re: Linux 4.9.93

> On 9 Apr 2018, at 11:57, Jean-Baptiste Theou wrote: > > On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 11:49:37 +0200 > Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > >>> On 9 April 2018 at 11:30, Greg KH wrote: On Mon, Apr 09, 2018 at 06:05:34PM +0900, Jean-Baptiste Theou wrote: Hi, After this patchset, a kernel

Re: Linux 4.9.93

On Mon, Apr 09, 2018 at 06:57:51PM +0900, Jean-Baptiste Theou wrote: > On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 11:49:37 +0200 > Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > > On 9 April 2018 at 11:30, Greg KH wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 09, 2018 at 06:05:34PM +0900, Jean-Baptiste

Re: Linux 4.9.93

On Mon, Apr 09, 2018 at 06:57:51PM +0900, Jean-Baptiste Theou wrote: > On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 11:49:37 +0200 > Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > > On 9 April 2018 at 11:30, Greg KH wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 09, 2018 at 06:05:34PM +0900, Jean-Baptiste Theou wrote: > > >> Hi, > > >> > > >> After this

Re: Linux 4.9.93

On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 11:49:37 +0200 Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On 9 April 2018 at 11:30, Greg KH wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 09, 2018 at 06:05:34PM +0900, Jean-Baptiste Theou wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> After this patchset, a kernel built with CFI

Re: Linux 4.9.93

On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 11:49:37 +0200 Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On 9 April 2018 at 11:30, Greg KH wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 09, 2018 at 06:05:34PM +0900, Jean-Baptiste Theou wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> After this patchset, a kernel built with CFI fails. Disabling > >> UNMAP_KERNEL_AT_EL0 fix the issue

Re: Linux 4.9.93

On Mon, Apr 09, 2018 at 06:05:34PM +0900, Jean-Baptiste Theou wrote: > Hi, Hi, > After this patchset, a kernel built with CFI fails. Disabling > UNMAP_KERNEL_AT_EL0 fix the issue obviously. > > Wondering if there is one of the test suite used on the review > patchset that covers the CFI

Re: Linux 4.9.93

On Mon, Apr 09, 2018 at 06:05:34PM +0900, Jean-Baptiste Theou wrote: > Hi, Hi, > After this patchset, a kernel built with CFI fails. Disabling > UNMAP_KERNEL_AT_EL0 fix the issue obviously. > > Wondering if there is one of the test suite used on the review > patchset that covers the CFI

Re: Linux 4.9.93

On 9 April 2018 at 11:30, Greg KH wrote: > On Mon, Apr 09, 2018 at 06:05:34PM +0900, Jean-Baptiste Theou wrote: >> Hi, >> >> After this patchset, a kernel built with CFI fails. Disabling >> UNMAP_KERNEL_AT_EL0 fix the issue obviously. How does one 'build a kernel with

Re: Linux 4.9.93

On 9 April 2018 at 11:30, Greg KH wrote: > On Mon, Apr 09, 2018 at 06:05:34PM +0900, Jean-Baptiste Theou wrote: >> Hi, >> >> After this patchset, a kernel built with CFI fails. Disabling >> UNMAP_KERNEL_AT_EL0 fix the issue obviously. How does one 'build a kernel with CFI' for arm64? > > Is

Re: Linux 4.9.93

On 09/04/18 10:30, Greg KH wrote: > On Mon, Apr 09, 2018 at 06:05:34PM +0900, Jean-Baptiste Theou wrote: >> Hi, >> >> After this patchset, a kernel built with CFI fails. Disabling >> UNMAP_KERNEL_AT_EL0 fix the issue obviously. > > Is this a "clean" 4.9.93 tree or a "4.9.93 merged into >

Re: Linux 4.9.93

On 09/04/18 10:30, Greg KH wrote: > On Mon, Apr 09, 2018 at 06:05:34PM +0900, Jean-Baptiste Theou wrote: >> Hi, >> >> After this patchset, a kernel built with CFI fails. Disabling >> UNMAP_KERNEL_AT_EL0 fix the issue obviously. > > Is this a "clean" 4.9.93 tree or a "4.9.93 merged into >

Re: Linux 4.9.93

On Mon, Apr 09, 2018 at 06:05:34PM +0900, Jean-Baptiste Theou wrote: > Hi, > > After this patchset, a kernel built with CFI fails. Disabling > UNMAP_KERNEL_AT_EL0 fix the issue obviously. Is this a "clean" 4.9.93 tree or a "4.9.93 merged into android-common-4.9? > Wondering if there is one of

Re: Linux 4.9.93

On Mon, Apr 09, 2018 at 06:05:34PM +0900, Jean-Baptiste Theou wrote: > Hi, > > After this patchset, a kernel built with CFI fails. Disabling > UNMAP_KERNEL_AT_EL0 fix the issue obviously. Is this a "clean" 4.9.93 tree or a "4.9.93 merged into android-common-4.9? > Wondering if there is one of

Re: Linux 4.9.93

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/pinctrl-palmas.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/pinctrl-palmas.txt index caf297bee1fb..c28d4eb83b76 100644 --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/pinctrl-palmas.txt +++

Re: Linux 4.9.93

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/pinctrl-palmas.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/pinctrl-palmas.txt index caf297bee1fb..c28d4eb83b76 100644 --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/pinctrl-palmas.txt +++