* Qian Cai wrote:
> The commit 108c14858b9e ("locking/lockdep: Add support for dynamic
> keys") introduced a boot warning on powerpc below, because since the
> commit 2d4f567103ff ("KVM: PPC: Introduce kvm_tmp framework") adds
> kvm_tmp[] into the .bss section and then free the rest of unused s
On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 07:50:26PM +1000, Aleksa Sarai wrote:
> On 2019-09-05, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> > On 04/09/2019 22.19, Aleksa Sarai wrote:
> > > A common pattern for syscall extensions is increasing the size of a
> > > struct passed from userspace, such that the zero-value of the new fiel
On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 06:19:22AM +1000, Aleksa Sarai wrote:
> A common pattern for syscall extensions is increasing the size of a
> struct passed from userspace, such that the zero-value of the new fields
> result in the old kernel behaviour (allowing for a mix of userspace and
> kernel vintages
On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 06:19:22AM +1000, Aleksa Sarai wrote:
> A common pattern for syscall extensions is increasing the size of a
> struct passed from userspace, such that the zero-value of the new fields
> result in the old kernel behaviour (allowing for a mix of userspace and
> kernel vintages
On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 01:17:38PM +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> On 05/09/2019 13.05, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 06:19:22AM +1000, Aleksa Sarai wrote:
>
> >> + if (unlikely(!access_ok(dst, usize)))
> >> + return -EFAULT;
> >> +
> >> + /* Deal with trailing b
On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 09:27:18PM +1000, Aleksa Sarai wrote:
> On 2019-09-05, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 06:19:22AM +1000, Aleksa Sarai wrote:
> > > A common pattern for syscall extensions is increasing the size of a
> > > struct passed from userspace, such that the zero
On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 07:07:50PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 06:19:22AM +1000, Aleksa Sarai wrote:
> > +/*
> > + * "memset(p, 0, size)" but for user space buffers. Caller must have
> > already
> > + * checked access_ok(p, size).
> > + */
> > +static int __memzero_user(void __
On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 07:28:01PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 08:23:03PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
>
> > Because every caller of that function right now has that limit set
> > anyway iirc. So we can either remove it from here and place it back for
> > the individual call
On Fri, Sep 06, 2019 at 05:56:18AM +1000, Aleksa Sarai wrote:
> On 2019-09-05, Al Viro wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 08:23:03PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> >
> > > Because every caller of that function right now has that limit set
> > > anyway iirc. So we can either remove it from here
> On Sep 7, 2019, at 3:05 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
>
> * Qian Cai wrote:
>
>> The commit 108c14858b9e ("locking/lockdep: Add support for dynamic
>> keys") introduced a boot warning on powerpc below, because since the
>> commit 2d4f567103ff ("KVM: PPC: Introduce kvm_tmp framework") adds
>> k
On Thu, 2019-09-05 at 06:19 +1000, Aleksa Sarai wrote:
> The most obvious syscall to add support for the new LOOKUP_* scoping
> flags would be openat(2). However, there are a few reasons why this is
> not the best course of action:
>
> * The new LOOKUP_* flags are intended to be security features
From: Juliet Kim
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2019 17:30:01 -0400
> Commit 36f1031c51a2 ("ibmvnic: Do not process reset during or after
> device removal") made the change to exit reset if the driver has been
> removed, but does not free reset work items of the adapter from queue.
>
> Ensure all reset work
On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 at 5:40 AM Jeff Layton wrote:
>
> After thinking about this a bit, I wonder if we might be better served
> with a new set of OA2_* flags instead of repurposing the O_* flags?
I'd hate to have yet _another_ set of translation functions, and
another chance of people just getting
> On Sep 7, 2019, at 9:58 AM, Linus Torvalds
> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 at 5:40 AM Jeff Layton wrote:
>>
>> After thinking about this a bit, I wonder if we might be better served
>> with a new set of OA2_* flags instead of repurposing the O_* flags?
>
> I'd hate to have yet _another
On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 at 10:42 AM Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
> Linus, you rejected resolveat() because you wanted a *nice* API
No. I rejected resoveat() because it was a completely broken garbage
API that couldn't do even basic stuff right (like O_CREAT).
We have a ton of flag space in the new opena
> On Sep 7, 2019, at 10:45 AM, Linus Torvalds
> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 at 10:42 AM Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>
>> Linus, you rejected resolveat() because you wanted a *nice* API
>
> No. I rejected resoveat() because it was a completely broken garbage
> API that couldn't do even basic
16 matches
Mail list logo
