[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20120301171914.7c64f095.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2012 17:19:14 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>, Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org, arnd@...db.de, davem@...emloft.net,
hpa@...or.com, mingo@...hat.com, oleg@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org,
rdunlap@...otime.net, mcgrathr@...omium.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
luto@....edu, eparis@...hat.com, serge.hallyn@...onical.com,
djm@...drot.org, scarybeasts@...il.com, indan@....nu, pmoore@...hat.com,
corbet@....net, eric.dumazet@...il.com, markus@...omium.org,
coreyb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 01/13] sk_run_filter: add support for custom
load_pointer
On Thu, 1 Mar 2012 16:57:49 -0800 Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 4:47 PM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
> > Hi Kees,
> >
> > On Thu, 1 Mar 2012 15:37:12 -0800 Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> Is it time to pull this into -next so more people can feel it? I brought
> >> Andy Lutomirski's patches forward (needed to bump the prctl values), and
> >> updated my git tree. If we're ready, here it is in all its request-pull
> >> format glory:
> >>
> >> The following changes since commit 2422c8368337196594265d52cad7316c9404bfcf:
> >> __ Stephen Rothwell (1):
> >> __ __ __ __ Add linux-next specific files for 20120301
> >
> > OK, not commenting on anything else, but I cannot merge that into
> > linux-next because it is based on yesterday's linux-next release and
> > linux-next (effectively) rebases every day ...
> >
> > Does this work depend on anything in linux-next? __Or could it be just
> > based off Linus' tree. __If it depends on other tree(s) merged into
> > linux-next, then you should base your tree on those tree(s) as long as
> > they never get rebased ...
>
> Unfortunately, yes, it does -- there were both ptrace changes and prctl changes.
>
> And at least the ptrace changes are, IIRC, in -mm, which has no tree.
> :P Given that, what's the best thing for me to do for this to be easy
> for you to pull?
Base the tree on mainline and wreck the -mm patches I guess. I'm good
at unwrecking patches.
That assumes that we're going to merge this stuff into 3.4 - if we
don't, unwrecker gets rewrecked and grumpy.
I don't know if we're going to merge it into 3.4? I haven't been
paying a lot of attention and haven't looked at the patches in a while.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
