[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 12:16:02 +0200
From: Keun-O Park <kpark3469@...il.com>
To: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Cc: kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
James Morse <james.morse@....com>, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, keun-o.park@...kmatter.ae
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] usercopy: reimplement arch_within_stack_frames
Hi Will,
On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 4:35 PM, Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com> wrote:
> Hi Sahara,
>
> On Thu, Mar 01, 2018 at 02:19:47PM +0400, kpark3469@...il.com wrote:
>> From: Sahara <keun-o.park@...kmatter.ae>
>>
>> This series of patches introduce the arm64 arch_within_stack_frames
>> implementation using stacktrace functions. Also the base code is
>> moved from thread_info.h to stacktrace.h. x86 code is reimplemented
>> to use frame pointer unwinder functions.
>
> What's the status on this series? I'm ok taking the arm64 patch from James
> to bring us up to speed with x86, but it doesn't make sense without the
> first patch in the series because the arch callback is out-of-line.
>
> Will
I haven't received any response from Kees or other engineers about
this series of patches yet.
Hi Kees, any comment on these patches to put these on the next stage?
Thanks.
BR
Sahara
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.
