[PATCH v5sub2 0/8] arm64: implement virtual KASLR

[Catalin Marinas]

On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 03:30:47PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 8 February 2016 at 13:14, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas at arm.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 12:42:30PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> >> On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 9:38 AM, Ard Biesheuvel
> >> <ard.biesheuvel at linaro.org> wrote:
> >> > On 5 February 2016 at 18:32, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas at arm.com> wrote:
> >> >> I'm still trying to get my head around how we merge those. Since I
> >> >> assume akpm will push them during the merging window, part of your code
> >> >> cannot be tested before.
> >> >
> >> > Actually, my original idea was for akpm to take them as a late merge
> >> > after rebasing to -rc1, since they touch a variety of architectures,
> >> > but I am not sure if that came across.
> >> >
> >> > You could always take the series through your tree instead, I guess?
> >>
> >> Traditionally akpm will de-duplicate patches he's carrying that appear
> >> in another tree. I think it should be okay to carry them in both
> >> places. (Though I'm CCing akpm just to see if I'm talking crazy.)
> >
> > For now, I'll merge this series in the arm64 tree and push it to next:
> >
> > http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1452007180-27411-1-git-send-email-ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org
> >
> > If there are any objections, I can drop the patches and do the
> > BUILDTIME_EXTABLE_SORT disabling trick until they end up in mainline.
> 
> Latest version is here:
> http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1453892123-17973-1-git-send-email-ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org
> (only difference is an ack from that Alpha maintainter/supporter to
> patches #1 and #2)

I applied the acks manually but I'll double-check to make sure I haven't
missed anything.

> However, the arm64 patch (#6) now conflicts with futex.h in -rc3 after
> the PAN fix, not sure how to best address that ...

I'll have a look.

-- 
Catalin