Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2019 17:14:19 +0100 From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> To: Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com> Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org, hpa@...or.com, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, linux_dti@...oud.com, linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, linux-mm@...ck.org, will.deacon@....com, ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org, kristen@...ux.intel.com, deneen.t.dock@...el.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/20] Merge text_poke fixes and executable lockdowns On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 03:44:31PM -0800, Rick Edgecombe wrote: > Changes v2 to v3: > - Fix commit messages and comments [Boris] > - Rename VM_HAS_SPECIAL_PERMS [Boris] > - Remove unnecessary local variables [Boris] > - Rename set_alias_*() functions [Boris, Andy] > - Save/restore DR registers when using temporary mm > - Move line deletion from patch 10 to patch 17 In your previous submission there was a patch called Subject: [PATCH v2 01/20] Fix "x86/alternatives: Lockdep-enforce text_mutex in text_poke*()" What happened to it? It did introduce a function text_poke_kgdb(), a.o., and I see this function in the diff contexts in some of the patches in this submission so it looks to me like you missed that first patch when submitting v3? Or am *I* missing something? Thx. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.
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.