[GIT PULL] tee subsystem pin_user_pages for v5.8

[Jens Wiklander]

On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 9:18 AM John Hubbard <jhubbard at nvidia.com> wrote:
>
> On 8/23/20 11:51 PM, Jens Wiklander wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 11:19 PM Olof Johansson <olof at lixom.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 12:58 PM John Hubbard <jhubbard at nvidia.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 8/21/20 11:49 AM, Olof Johansson wrote:
> >>>> On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 03:12:59PM +0200, Jens Wiklander wrote:
> >>>>> Hello arm-soc maintainers,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Please pull this small patch converting the tee subsystem to use
> >>>>> pin_user_pages() instead of get_user_pages().
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>> Jens
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The following changes since commit ae83d0b416db002fe95601e7f97f64b59514d936:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>     Linux 5.7-rc2 (2020-04-19 14:35:30 -0700)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> are available in the Git repository at:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>     git://git.linaro.org:/people/jens.wiklander/linux-tee.git tags/tee-pin-user-pages-for-5.8
> >>>>>
> >>>>> for you to fetch changes up to 37f6b4d5f47b600ec4ab6682c005a44a1bfca530:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>     tee: convert get_user_pages() --> pin_user_pages() (2020-05-26 10:42:41 +0200)
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi, I noticed this never got merged, but I don't see any follow-up here that
> >>>> retracts it. Is it still pending merge such that I should queue it for v5.10?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> I think so. I had marked it in my notes as "accepted, and the maintainer will
> >>> eventually merge it", and I left it at that. It's still desirable.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Looks like it conflicts with some of the later work. Jens, given the
> >> timelines here it's probably easiest all around if you rebase/respin
> >> and send a fresh pull request. I could fix it up but you'd still need
> >> to review that so the amount of work is probably less if you do it
> >> directly.
> >
> > Agree, I'll send a fresh pull request once we have this rebased.
> > The conflict is with the recently added call to get_kernel_pages()
> > when kernel memory is shared.
> > The conflict isn't trivial, I guess we need to handle the different
> > types of pages differently when releasing them.
> > John, would you mind rebasing and posting the patch again?
> >
>
> Sure. Should it be against 5.9-rc2, or something else? I can do this in the morning,
> about 10 hrs from now.

5.9-rc2 sounds good.

Thanks,
Jens