Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 7

2017-11-14 Thread Khalid Aziz
On Tue, 2017-11-14 at 10:04 +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > If there is a general consensus that this is the preferred way to go, > I > will post the patch as an RFC to linux-api > > [1] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20171113160637.jhekbdyfpccme3be@dhcp22.s > use.cz I prefer the new flag. It is cleaner a

Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 7

2017-11-14 Thread Michal Hocko
On Tue 14-11-17 20:18:04, Michael Ellerman wrote: > Michal Hocko writes: > > > [Sorry for spamming, this one is the last attempt hopefully] > > > > On Mon 13-11-17 16:49:39, Michal Hocko wrote: > >> On Mon 13-11-17 16:16:41, Michal Hocko wrote: > >> > On Mon 13-11-17 13:00:57, Michal Hocko wrote:

Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 7

2017-11-14 Thread Michael Ellerman
Michal Hocko writes: > [Sorry for spamming, this one is the last attempt hopefully] > > On Mon 13-11-17 16:49:39, Michal Hocko wrote: >> On Mon 13-11-17 16:16:41, Michal Hocko wrote: >> > On Mon 13-11-17 13:00:57, Michal Hocko wrote: >> > [...] >> > > Yes, I have mentioned that in the previous em

Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 7

2017-11-14 Thread Michal Hocko
On Tue 14-11-17 19:54:59, Michael Ellerman wrote: > Michal Hocko writes: [...] > > So this was the most simple solution I could come up > > with. If there was a general interest for MAP_FIXED_SAFE then we can > > introduce it later of course. I would just like the hardening merged > > sooner rathe

Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 7

2017-11-14 Thread Michael Ellerman
Michal Hocko writes: > On Mon 13-11-17 13:00:57, Michal Hocko wrote: > [...] >> Yes, I have mentioned that in the previous email but the amount of code >> would be even larger. Basically every arch which reimplements >> arch_get_unmapped_area would have to special case new MAP_FIXED flag to >> do

Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 7

2017-11-14 Thread Michael Ellerman
Michal Hocko writes: > On Mon 13-11-17 22:34:50, Michael Ellerman wrote: >> Hi Michal, >> >> Michal Hocko writes: >> > On Mon 13-11-17 10:20:06, Michal Hocko wrote: >> >> [Cc arm and ppc maintainers] >> > >> > Hmm, it turned out to be a problem on other architectures as well. >> > CCing more ma

Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 7

2017-11-13 Thread Michal Hocko
On Mon 13-11-17 09:35:22, Khalid Aziz wrote: > On 11/13/2017 09:06 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > OK, so this one should take care of the backward compatibility while > > still not touching the arch code > > --- > > commit 39ff9bf8597e79a032da0954aea1f0d77d137765 > > Author: Michal Hocko > > Date:

Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 7

2017-11-13 Thread Khalid Aziz
On 11/13/2017 09:06 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: OK, so this one should take care of the backward compatibility while still not touching the arch code --- commit 39ff9bf8597e79a032da0954aea1f0d77d137765 Author: Michal Hocko Date: Mon Nov 13 17:06:24 2017 +0100 mm: introduce MAP_FIXED_SAFE

Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 7

2017-11-13 Thread Michal Hocko
[Sorry for spamming, this one is the last attempt hopefully] On Mon 13-11-17 16:49:39, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Mon 13-11-17 16:16:41, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Mon 13-11-17 13:00:57, Michal Hocko wrote: > > [...] > > > Yes, I have mentioned that in the previous email but the amount of code > > >

Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 7

2017-11-13 Thread Michal Hocko
On Mon 13-11-17 15:48:13, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 04:16:41PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Mon 13-11-17 13:00:57, Michal Hocko wrote: > > [...] > > > Yes, I have mentioned that in the previous email but the amount of code > > > would be even larger. Basically e

Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 7

2017-11-13 Thread Michal Hocko
On Mon 13-11-17 16:16:41, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Mon 13-11-17 13:00:57, Michal Hocko wrote: > [...] > > Yes, I have mentioned that in the previous email but the amount of code > > would be even larger. Basically every arch which reimplements > > arch_get_unmapped_area would have to special case n

Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 7

2017-11-13 Thread Russell King - ARM Linux
On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 04:16:41PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Mon 13-11-17 13:00:57, Michal Hocko wrote: > [...] > > Yes, I have mentioned that in the previous email but the amount of code > > would be even larger. Basically every arch which reimplements > > arch_get_unmapped_area would have t

Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 7

2017-11-13 Thread Michal Hocko
On Mon 13-11-17 15:09:09, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 03:11:40PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Mon 13-11-17 10:20:06, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > [Cc arm and ppc maintainers] > > > > > > Thanks a lot for testing! > > > > > > On Sun 12-11-17 11:38:02, Joel Stanley w

Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 7

2017-11-13 Thread Michal Hocko
On Mon 13-11-17 13:00:57, Michal Hocko wrote: [...] > Yes, I have mentioned that in the previous email but the amount of code > would be even larger. Basically every arch which reimplements > arch_get_unmapped_area would have to special case new MAP_FIXED flag to > do vma lookup. It turned out tha

Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 7

2017-11-13 Thread Russell King - ARM Linux
On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 03:11:40PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Mon 13-11-17 10:20:06, Michal Hocko wrote: > > [Cc arm and ppc maintainers] > > > > Thanks a lot for testing! > > > > On Sun 12-11-17 11:38:02, Joel Stanley wrote: > > > On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 11:00 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > >

Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 7

2017-11-13 Thread Michal Hocko
On Mon 13-11-17 10:20:06, Michal Hocko wrote: > [Cc arm and ppc maintainers] > > Thanks a lot for testing! > > On Sun 12-11-17 11:38:02, Joel Stanley wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 11:00 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > Hi Joel, > > > > > > On Wed 08-11-17 15:20:50, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > [.

Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 7

2017-11-13 Thread Michal Hocko
On Mon 13-11-17 22:34:50, Michael Ellerman wrote: > Hi Michal, > > Michal Hocko writes: > > On Mon 13-11-17 10:20:06, Michal Hocko wrote: > >> [Cc arm and ppc maintainers] > > > > Hmm, it turned out to be a problem on other architectures as well. > > CCing more maintainers. For your reference, we

Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 7

2017-11-13 Thread Michael Ellerman
Hi Michal, Michal Hocko writes: > On Mon 13-11-17 10:20:06, Michal Hocko wrote: >> [Cc arm and ppc maintainers] > > Hmm, it turned out to be a problem on other architectures as well. > CCing more maintainers. For your reference, we are talking about > http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20171023082608.6167-

Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 7

2017-11-13 Thread Michal Hocko
On Mon 13-11-17 10:20:06, Michal Hocko wrote: > [Cc arm and ppc maintainers] Hmm, it turned out to be a problem on other architectures as well. CCing more maintainers. For your reference, we are talking about http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20171023082608.6167-1-mho...@kernel.org which has broken archite

Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 7

2017-11-13 Thread Russell King - ARM Linux
On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 10:20:06AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > [Cc arm and ppc maintainers] > > Thanks a lot for testing! > > On Sun 12-11-17 11:38:02, Joel Stanley wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 11:00 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > Hi Joel, > > > > > > On Wed 08-11-17 15:20:50, Michal Hocko

Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 7

2017-11-13 Thread Michal Hocko
[Cc arm and ppc maintainers] Thanks a lot for testing! On Sun 12-11-17 11:38:02, Joel Stanley wrote: > On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 11:00 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > Hi Joel, > > > > On Wed 08-11-17 15:20:50, Michal Hocko wrote: > > [...] > >> > There are a lot of messages on the way up that look lik