[PULL][unstable][Artful][SRU Zesty] arm64: fix crash reading from /proc/kcore

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
8 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

[PULL][unstable][Artful][SRU Zesty] arm64: fix crash reading from /proc/kcore

dann frazier-4
See:
BugLink: https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1702749

The following changes since commit f4f26263ff6a66c2012e9417a56e1b01a95c45d0:

  UBUNTU: Ubuntu-4.10.0-28.32 (2017-06-29 11:24:09 +0200)

are available in the git repository at:

  git://git.launchpad.net/~dannf/ubuntu/+source/linux/+git/linux lp1702749

for you to fetch changes up to a1d4967053e162bf4933b5a62b7be3490c3ba882:

  arm64: mm: select CONFIG_ARCH_PROC_KCORE_TEXT (2017-07-06 13:53:23 -0600)

----------------------------------------------------------------
Ard Biesheuvel (2):
      fs/proc: kcore: use kcore_list type to check for vmalloc/module address
      arm64: mm: select CONFIG_ARCH_PROC_KCORE_TEXT

 arch/arm64/Kconfig | 3 +++
 fs/proc/kcore.c    | 2 +-
 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

--
kernel-team mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kernel-team
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

ACK / APPLIED[artful]: [PULL][unstable][Artful][SRU Zesty] arm64: fix crash reading from /proc/kcore

Seth Forshee
On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 03:55:04PM -0600, dann frazier wrote:

> See:
> BugLink: https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1702749
>
> The following changes since commit f4f26263ff6a66c2012e9417a56e1b01a95c45d0:
>
>   UBUNTU: Ubuntu-4.10.0-28.32 (2017-06-29 11:24:09 +0200)
>
> are available in the git repository at:
>
>   git://git.launchpad.net/~dannf/ubuntu/+source/linux/+git/linux lp1702749
>
> for you to fetch changes up to a1d4967053e162bf4933b5a62b7be3490c3ba882:
>
>   arm64: mm: select CONFIG_ARCH_PROC_KCORE_TEXT (2017-07-06 13:53:23 -0600)

Clean cherry picks, positive testing. Patches look reasonable to me.

Acked-by: Seth Forshee <[hidden email]>

Applied to artful/master-next and unstable/master, thanks.

--
kernel-team mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kernel-team
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

ACK/cmnt: [PULL][unstable][Artful][SRU Zesty] arm64: fix crash reading from /proc/kcore

Stefan Bader-2
In reply to this post by dann frazier-4
On 06.07.2017 23:55, dann frazier wrote:

> See:
> BugLink: https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1702749
>
> The following changes since commit f4f26263ff6a66c2012e9417a56e1b01a95c45d0:
>
>   UBUNTU: Ubuntu-4.10.0-28.32 (2017-06-29 11:24:09 +0200)
>
> are available in the git repository at:
>
>   git://git.launchpad.net/~dannf/ubuntu/+source/linux/+git/linux lp1702749
>
> for you to fetch changes up to a1d4967053e162bf4933b5a62b7be3490c3ba882:
>
>   arm64: mm: select CONFIG_ARCH_PROC_KCORE_TEXT (2017-07-06 13:53:23 -0600)
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Ard Biesheuvel (2):
>       fs/proc: kcore: use kcore_list type to check for vmalloc/module address
>       arm64: mm: select CONFIG_ARCH_PROC_KCORE_TEXT
>
>  arch/arm64/Kconfig | 3 +++
>  fs/proc/kcore.c    | 2 +-
>  2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
Acked-by: Stefan Bader <[hidden email]>

Looks reasonable, did not find any fixups related to the kcore patch. Might need
an updateconfigs check when applying to Zesty. <whine>Could be a little more
descriptive in the pull-request</whine>

-Stefan


--
kernel-team mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kernel-team

signature.asc (836 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: ACK/cmnt: [PULL][unstable][Artful][SRU Zesty] arm64: fix crash reading from /proc/kcore

dann frazier-4
On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 2:18 AM, Stefan Bader
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 06.07.2017 23:55, dann frazier wrote:
>> See:
>> BugLink: https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1702749
>>
>> The following changes since commit f4f26263ff6a66c2012e9417a56e1b01a95c45d0:
>>
>>   UBUNTU: Ubuntu-4.10.0-28.32 (2017-06-29 11:24:09 +0200)
>>
>> are available in the git repository at:
>>
>>   git://git.launchpad.net/~dannf/ubuntu/+source/linux/+git/linux lp1702749
>>
>> for you to fetch changes up to a1d4967053e162bf4933b5a62b7be3490c3ba882:
>>
>>   arm64: mm: select CONFIG_ARCH_PROC_KCORE_TEXT (2017-07-06 13:53:23 -0600)
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>> Ard Biesheuvel (2):
>>       fs/proc: kcore: use kcore_list type to check for vmalloc/module address
>>       arm64: mm: select CONFIG_ARCH_PROC_KCORE_TEXT
>>
>>  arch/arm64/Kconfig | 3 +++
>>  fs/proc/kcore.c    | 2 +-
>>  2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
> Acked-by: Stefan Bader <[hidden email]>
>
> Looks reasonable, did not find any fixups related to the kcore patch. Might need
> an updateconfigs check when applying to Zesty.

Thanks Stefan. fyi, I ran an updateconfigs in zesty & didn't see any changes.

> <whine>Could be a little more
> descriptive in the pull-request</whine>

Yeah, I do go back & forth on what to put in the pull-request since I
try to capture everything in the bug. Perhaps I can just cut & paste
the bug description/SRU template in future PRs?

  -dann

--
kernel-team mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kernel-team
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: ACK/cmnt: [PULL][unstable][Artful][SRU Zesty] arm64: fix crash reading from /proc/kcore

Stefan Bader-2
On 12.07.2017 21:42, dann frazier wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 2:18 AM, Stefan Bader
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> On 06.07.2017 23:55, dann frazier wrote:
>>> See:
>>> BugLink: https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1702749
>>>
>>> The following changes since commit f4f26263ff6a66c2012e9417a56e1b01a95c45d0:
>>>
>>>   UBUNTU: Ubuntu-4.10.0-28.32 (2017-06-29 11:24:09 +0200)
>>>
>>> are available in the git repository at:
>>>
>>>   git://git.launchpad.net/~dannf/ubuntu/+source/linux/+git/linux lp1702749
>>>
>>> for you to fetch changes up to a1d4967053e162bf4933b5a62b7be3490c3ba882:
>>>
>>>   arm64: mm: select CONFIG_ARCH_PROC_KCORE_TEXT (2017-07-06 13:53:23 -0600)
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Ard Biesheuvel (2):
>>>       fs/proc: kcore: use kcore_list type to check for vmalloc/module address
>>>       arm64: mm: select CONFIG_ARCH_PROC_KCORE_TEXT
>>>
>>>  arch/arm64/Kconfig | 3 +++
>>>  fs/proc/kcore.c    | 2 +-
>>>  2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>> Acked-by: Stefan Bader <[hidden email]>
>>
>> Looks reasonable, did not find any fixups related to the kcore patch. Might need
>> an updateconfigs check when applying to Zesty.
>
> Thanks Stefan. fyi, I ran an updateconfigs in zesty & didn't see any changes.
>
>> <whine>Could be a little more
>> descriptive in the pull-request</whine>
>
> Yeah, I do go back & forth on what to put in the pull-request since I
> try to capture everything in the bug. Perhaps I can just cut & paste
> the bug description/SRU template in future PRs?
Partially it is a lot just depending on time, coffee levels and general
displeasement with the world. Generally I believe sru justifications in bug
reports should be a little less technical and more rational (make a sru team
member feel ok with the change, and those not necessarily are kernel devs) and
the info sent along with the patches more of the sort where does it come from,
were those simple cherry-picks or how hard had things to be tweaked. And in this
case (but personal limits vary greatly between people) I would have preferred a
the patches themselves on the mailing list instead of a pull request (I would
say my limit is about 5, but again might vary depending on how badly one feels
annoyed by the world in general).

-Stefan
>
>   -dann
>



--
kernel-team mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kernel-team

signature.asc (836 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: ACK/cmnt: [PULL][unstable][Artful][SRU Zesty] arm64: fix crash reading from /proc/kcore

dann frazier-4
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 2:56 AM, Stefan Bader
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 12.07.2017 21:42, dann frazier wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 2:18 AM, Stefan Bader
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> On 06.07.2017 23:55, dann frazier wrote:
>>>> See:
>>>> BugLink: https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1702749
>>>>
>>>> The following changes since commit f4f26263ff6a66c2012e9417a56e1b01a95c45d0:
>>>>
>>>>   UBUNTU: Ubuntu-4.10.0-28.32 (2017-06-29 11:24:09 +0200)
>>>>
>>>> are available in the git repository at:
>>>>
>>>>   git://git.launchpad.net/~dannf/ubuntu/+source/linux/+git/linux lp1702749
>>>>
>>>> for you to fetch changes up to a1d4967053e162bf4933b5a62b7be3490c3ba882:
>>>>
>>>>   arm64: mm: select CONFIG_ARCH_PROC_KCORE_TEXT (2017-07-06 13:53:23 -0600)
>>>>
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> Ard Biesheuvel (2):
>>>>       fs/proc: kcore: use kcore_list type to check for vmalloc/module address
>>>>       arm64: mm: select CONFIG_ARCH_PROC_KCORE_TEXT
>>>>
>>>>  arch/arm64/Kconfig | 3 +++
>>>>  fs/proc/kcore.c    | 2 +-
>>>>  2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>> Acked-by: Stefan Bader <[hidden email]>
>>>
>>> Looks reasonable, did not find any fixups related to the kcore patch. Might need
>>> an updateconfigs check when applying to Zesty.
>>
>> Thanks Stefan. fyi, I ran an updateconfigs in zesty & didn't see any changes.
>>
>>> <whine>Could be a little more
>>> descriptive in the pull-request</whine>
>>
>> Yeah, I do go back & forth on what to put in the pull-request since I
>> try to capture everything in the bug. Perhaps I can just cut & paste
>> the bug description/SRU template in future PRs?
>
> Partially it is a lot just depending on time, coffee levels and general
> displeasement with the world. Generally I believe sru justifications in bug
> reports should be a little less technical and more rational (make a sru team
> member feel ok with the change, and those not necessarily are kernel devs) and
> the info sent along with the patches more of the sort where does it come from,
> were those simple cherry-picks or how hard had things to be tweaked.

Ah, yeah - I've started omitting those notes, relying on the
"cherry-picked from" (vs "backported from") notation in the commits
themselves when they are clean cherry picks. But yeah - doesn't hurt
to add more color, esp. as an extra check in case the annotation is
incorrect.

> And in this
> case (but personal limits vary greatly between people) I would have preferred a
> the patches themselves on the mailing list instead of a pull request (I would
> say my limit is about 5, but again might vary depending on how badly one feels
> annoyed by the world in general).

Makes sense. In the past, I'd been told by another k-t member that
PR's are preferred, even for 1 patch, but always happy to adjust for
those who are actively reviewing my patches :)

 -dann

--
kernel-team mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kernel-team
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: ACK/cmnt: [PULL][unstable][Artful][SRU Zesty] arm64: fix crash reading from /proc/kcore

Seth Forshee
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 09:32:11AM -0600, dann frazier wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 2:56 AM, Stefan Bader
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > On 12.07.2017 21:42, dann frazier wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 2:18 AM, Stefan Bader
> >> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>> On 06.07.2017 23:55, dann frazier wrote:
> >>>> See:
> >>>> BugLink: https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1702749
> >>>>
> >>>> The following changes since commit f4f26263ff6a66c2012e9417a56e1b01a95c45d0:
> >>>>
> >>>>   UBUNTU: Ubuntu-4.10.0-28.32 (2017-06-29 11:24:09 +0200)
> >>>>
> >>>> are available in the git repository at:
> >>>>
> >>>>   git://git.launchpad.net/~dannf/ubuntu/+source/linux/+git/linux lp1702749
> >>>>
> >>>> for you to fetch changes up to a1d4967053e162bf4933b5a62b7be3490c3ba882:
> >>>>
> >>>>   arm64: mm: select CONFIG_ARCH_PROC_KCORE_TEXT (2017-07-06 13:53:23 -0600)
> >>>>
> >>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>> Ard Biesheuvel (2):
> >>>>       fs/proc: kcore: use kcore_list type to check for vmalloc/module address
> >>>>       arm64: mm: select CONFIG_ARCH_PROC_KCORE_TEXT
> >>>>
> >>>>  arch/arm64/Kconfig | 3 +++
> >>>>  fs/proc/kcore.c    | 2 +-
> >>>>  2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>>>
> >>> Acked-by: Stefan Bader <[hidden email]>
> >>>
> >>> Looks reasonable, did not find any fixups related to the kcore patch. Might need
> >>> an updateconfigs check when applying to Zesty.
> >>
> >> Thanks Stefan. fyi, I ran an updateconfigs in zesty & didn't see any changes.
> >>
> >>> <whine>Could be a little more
> >>> descriptive in the pull-request</whine>
> >>
> >> Yeah, I do go back & forth on what to put in the pull-request since I
> >> try to capture everything in the bug. Perhaps I can just cut & paste
> >> the bug description/SRU template in future PRs?
> >
> > Partially it is a lot just depending on time, coffee levels and general
> > displeasement with the world. Generally I believe sru justifications in bug
> > reports should be a little less technical and more rational (make a sru team
> > member feel ok with the change, and those not necessarily are kernel devs) and
> > the info sent along with the patches more of the sort where does it come from,
> > were those simple cherry-picks or how hard had things to be tweaked.
>
> Ah, yeah - I've started omitting those notes, relying on the
> "cherry-picked from" (vs "backported from") notation in the commits
> themselves when they are clean cherry picks. But yeah - doesn't hurt
> to add more color, esp. as an extra check in case the annotation is
> incorrect.
>
> > And in this
> > case (but personal limits vary greatly between people) I would have preferred a
> > the patches themselves on the mailing list instead of a pull request (I would
> > say my limit is about 5, but again might vary depending on how badly one feels
> > annoyed by the world in general).
>
> Makes sense. In the past, I'd been told by another k-t member that
> PR's are preferred, even for 1 patch, but always happy to adjust for
> those who are actively reviewing my patches :)

The problem is it comes down to personal preference. A nice compromise
is to include the pull request in the cover letter for the patch series.
Though a pull request for a single patch seems extreme to me.

--
kernel-team mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kernel-team
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

APPLIED: [PULL][unstable][Artful][SRU Zesty] arm64: fix crash reading from /proc/kcore

Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo-3
In reply to this post by dann frazier-4
Applied to zesty master-next branch.

Thanks.
Cascardo.

--
kernel-team mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kernel-team
Loading...