| Message ID | 20250114042553.1624831-1-volodymyr_babchuk@epam.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | Add/enable stack protector | expand |
On 14/01/2025 4:25 am, Volodymyr Babchuk wrote: > Volodymyr Babchuk (4): > common: remove -fno-stack-protector from EMBEDDED_EXTRA_CFLAGS > xen: common: add ability to enable stack protector > xen: arm: enable stack protector feature > CHANGELOG.md: Mention stack-protector feature Reviewed-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> There's one minor formatting error which can be fixed on commit. ~Andrew
Hi Andrew, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> writes: > On 14/01/2025 4:25 am, Volodymyr Babchuk wrote: >> Volodymyr Babchuk (4): >> common: remove -fno-stack-protector from EMBEDDED_EXTRA_CFLAGS >> xen: common: add ability to enable stack protector >> xen: arm: enable stack protector feature >> CHANGELOG.md: Mention stack-protector feature > > Reviewed-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> > > There's one minor formatting error which can be fixed on commit. > > ~Andrew Thanks for the review. I noticed that this series is not committed. Is there anything else required from my side?
On 13/02/2025 1:54 pm, Volodymyr Babchuk wrote: > Hi Andrew, > > Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> writes: > >> On 14/01/2025 4:25 am, Volodymyr Babchuk wrote: >>> Volodymyr Babchuk (4): >>> common: remove -fno-stack-protector from EMBEDDED_EXTRA_CFLAGS >>> xen: common: add ability to enable stack protector >>> xen: arm: enable stack protector feature >>> CHANGELOG.md: Mention stack-protector feature >> Reviewed-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> >> >> There's one minor formatting error which can be fixed on commit. >> >> ~Andrew > Thanks for the review. I noticed that this series is not committed. Is > there anything else required from my side? > You need an ARM Ack on patch 3. [EDIT], no you don't, my R-by is good enough. And at this point at rc4, you'll need to persuade Oleksii to take it for 4.20. Personally I think it's low risk and worthwhile to take for 4.20, and it was technically completed in time - it just fell between the cracks. ~Andrew
On 2/13/25 3:07 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote: > On 13/02/2025 1:54 pm, Volodymyr Babchuk wrote: >> Hi Andrew, >> >> Andrew Cooper<andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> writes: >> >>> On 14/01/2025 4:25 am, Volodymyr Babchuk wrote: >>>> Volodymyr Babchuk (4): >>>> common: remove -fno-stack-protector from EMBEDDED_EXTRA_CFLAGS >>>> xen: common: add ability to enable stack protector >>>> xen: arm: enable stack protector feature >>>> CHANGELOG.md: Mention stack-protector feature >>> Reviewed-by: Andrew Cooper<andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> >>> >>> There's one minor formatting error which can be fixed on commit. >>> >>> ~Andrew >> Thanks for the review. I noticed that this series is not committed. Is >> there anything else required from my side? >> > You need an ARM Ack on patch 3. [EDIT], no you don't, my R-by is good > enough. > > And at this point at rc4, you'll need to persuade Oleksii to take it for > 4.20. > > Personally I think it's low risk and worthwhile to take for 4.20, and it > was technically completed in time - it just fell between the cracks. I think the same it's low risk patch series, so we can take it for 4.20: Release-Acked-by: Oleksii Kurochko<olekskii.kurochko@gmail.com> Thanks. ~ Oleksii > > ~Andrew
Hi, On 13/02/2025 14:21, Oleksii Kurochko wrote: > > On 2/13/25 3:07 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote: >> On 13/02/2025 1:54 pm, Volodymyr Babchuk wrote: >>> Hi Andrew, >>> >>> Andrew Cooper<andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> writes: >>> >>>> On 14/01/2025 4:25 am, Volodymyr Babchuk wrote: >>>>> Volodymyr Babchuk (4): >>>>> common: remove -fno-stack-protector from EMBEDDED_EXTRA_CFLAGS >>>>> xen: common: add ability to enable stack protector >>>>> xen: arm: enable stack protector feature >>>>> CHANGELOG.md: Mention stack-protector feature >>>> Reviewed-by: Andrew Cooper<andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> >>>> >>>> There's one minor formatting error which can be fixed on commit. >>>> >>>> ~Andrew >>> Thanks for the review. I noticed that this series is not committed. Is >>> there anything else required from my side? >>> >> You need an ARM Ack on patch 3. [EDIT], no you don't, my R-by is good >> enough. I beg to differ. For low level code, you really ought to have Arm folks to confirm this is correct. In fact, I don't think patch #3 it is. So ... >> >> And at this point at rc4, you'll need to persuade Oleksii to take it for >> 4.20. >> >> Personally I think it's low risk and worthwhile to take for 4.20, and it >> was technically completed in time - it just fell between the cracks. > > I think the same it's low risk patch series, so we can take it for 4.20: > Release-Acked-by: Oleksii Kurochko<olekskii.kurochko@gmail.com> ... I should not go to 4.20 as-is. And before someone ask why it wasn't answered early. I can't comment for the other Arm maintainers, but I have been away for the past two months. So still catching up on my emails. Cheers,
On 2/13/25 3:21 PM, Oleksii Kurochko wrote: > > > On 2/13/25 3:07 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote: >> On 13/02/2025 1:54 pm, Volodymyr Babchuk wrote: >>> Hi Andrew, >>> >>> Andrew Cooper<andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> writes: >>> >>>> On 14/01/2025 4:25 am, Volodymyr Babchuk wrote: >>>>> Volodymyr Babchuk (4): >>>>> common: remove -fno-stack-protector from EMBEDDED_EXTRA_CFLAGS >>>>> xen: common: add ability to enable stack protector >>>>> xen: arm: enable stack protector feature >>>>> CHANGELOG.md: Mention stack-protector feature >>>> Reviewed-by: Andrew Cooper<andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> >>>> >>>> There's one minor formatting error which can be fixed on commit. >>>> >>>> ~Andrew >>> Thanks for the review. I noticed that this series is not committed. Is >>> there anything else required from my side? >>> >> You need an ARM Ack on patch 3. [EDIT], no you don't, my R-by is good >> enough. Andrew, why it is enough your R-by for patch 3? It seems like it is fully Arm related patch and I expect to see Ack from Arm maintainers. Also, there is some comments from Julien. >> And at this point at rc4, you'll need to persuade Oleksii to take it for >> 4.20. >> >> Personally I think it's low risk and worthwhile to take for 4.20, and it >> was technically completed in time - it just fell between the cracks. > I think the same it's low risk patch series, so we can take it for 4.20: > Release-Acked-by: Oleksii Kurochko<olekskii.kurochko@gmail.com> > > Thanks. > > ~ Oleksii >> ~Andrew
On 2/13/25 3:24 PM, Julien Grall wrote: > Hi, > > On 13/02/2025 14:21, Oleksii Kurochko wrote: >> >> On 2/13/25 3:07 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote: >>> On 13/02/2025 1:54 pm, Volodymyr Babchuk wrote: >>>> Hi Andrew, >>>> >>>> Andrew Cooper<andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> On 14/01/2025 4:25 am, Volodymyr Babchuk wrote: >>>>>> Volodymyr Babchuk (4): >>>>>> common: remove -fno-stack-protector from EMBEDDED_EXTRA_CFLAGS >>>>>> xen: common: add ability to enable stack protector >>>>>> xen: arm: enable stack protector feature >>>>>> CHANGELOG.md: Mention stack-protector feature >>>>> Reviewed-by: Andrew Cooper<andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> >>>>> >>>>> There's one minor formatting error which can be fixed on commit. >>>>> >>>>> ~Andrew >>>> Thanks for the review. I noticed that this series is not committed. Is >>>> there anything else required from my side? >>>> >>> You need an ARM Ack on patch 3. [EDIT], no you don't, my R-by is good >>> enough. > > I beg to differ. For low level code, you really ought to have Arm > folks to confirm this is correct. In fact, I don't think patch #3 it > is. So ... > >>> >>> And at this point at rc4, you'll need to persuade Oleksii to take it >>> for >>> 4.20. >>> >>> Personally I think it's low risk and worthwhile to take for 4.20, >>> and it >>> was technically completed in time - it just fell between the cracks. >> >> I think the same it's low risk patch series, so we can take it for 4.20: >> Release-Acked-by: Oleksii Kurochko<olekskii.kurochko@gmail.com> > > ... I should not go to 4.20 as-is. > > And before someone ask why it wasn't answered early. I can't comment > for the other Arm maintainers, but I have been away for the past two > months. So still catching up on my emails. Agree, I wrote that in follow-up reply to my initial reply. So if the proper Ack will be received I still think we can consider to have it in 4.20. ~ Oleksii >
On 13.02.2025 15:26, Oleksii Kurochko wrote: > > On 2/13/25 3:21 PM, Oleksii Kurochko wrote: >> >> >> On 2/13/25 3:07 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote: >>> On 13/02/2025 1:54 pm, Volodymyr Babchuk wrote: >>>> Hi Andrew, >>>> >>>> Andrew Cooper<andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> On 14/01/2025 4:25 am, Volodymyr Babchuk wrote: >>>>>> Volodymyr Babchuk (4): >>>>>> common: remove -fno-stack-protector from EMBEDDED_EXTRA_CFLAGS >>>>>> xen: common: add ability to enable stack protector >>>>>> xen: arm: enable stack protector feature >>>>>> CHANGELOG.md: Mention stack-protector feature >>>>> Reviewed-by: Andrew Cooper<andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> >>>>> >>>>> There's one minor formatting error which can be fixed on commit. >>>>> >>>>> ~Andrew >>>> Thanks for the review. I noticed that this series is not committed. Is >>>> there anything else required from my side? >>>> >>> You need an ARM Ack on patch 3. [EDIT], no you don't, my R-by is good >>> enough. > > Andrew, why it is enough your R-by for patch 3? It seems like it is fully Arm related patch > and I expect to see Ack from Arm maintainers. Also, there is some comments from Julien. At a guess Andrew found Volodymyr in the ARM section of maintainers, but then didn't pay close attention to the R: (rather than M:). Jan
On 13/02/2025 2:26 pm, Oleksii Kurochko wrote: > > > On 2/13/25 3:21 PM, Oleksii Kurochko wrote: >> >> >> On 2/13/25 3:07 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote: >>> On 13/02/2025 1:54 pm, Volodymyr Babchuk wrote: >>>> Hi Andrew, >>>> >>>> Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> On 14/01/2025 4:25 am, Volodymyr Babchuk wrote: >>>>>> Volodymyr Babchuk (4): >>>>>> common: remove -fno-stack-protector from EMBEDDED_EXTRA_CFLAGS >>>>>> xen: common: add ability to enable stack protector >>>>>> xen: arm: enable stack protector feature >>>>>> CHANGELOG.md: Mention stack-protector feature >>>>> Reviewed-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> >>>>> >>>>> There's one minor formatting error which can be fixed on commit. >>>>> >>>>> ~Andrew >>>> Thanks for the review. I noticed that this series is not committed. Is >>>> there anything else required from my side? >>>> >>> You need an ARM Ack on patch 3. [EDIT], no you don't, my R-by is good >>> enough. > Andrew, why it is enough your R-by for patch 3? It seems like it is fully Arm related patch > and I expect to see Ack from Arm maintainers. Also, there is some comments from Julien. Volodymyr is an ARM maintainer (so qualifies for the ARM requirement), and my R-by covers the "looked over by any other person" requirement. ~Andrew
On 13/02/2025 2:30 pm, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 13.02.2025 15:26, Oleksii Kurochko wrote: >> On 2/13/25 3:21 PM, Oleksii Kurochko wrote: >>> >>> On 2/13/25 3:07 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote: >>>> On 13/02/2025 1:54 pm, Volodymyr Babchuk wrote: >>>>> Hi Andrew, >>>>> >>>>> Andrew Cooper<andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> writes: >>>>> >>>>>> On 14/01/2025 4:25 am, Volodymyr Babchuk wrote: >>>>>>> Volodymyr Babchuk (4): >>>>>>> common: remove -fno-stack-protector from EMBEDDED_EXTRA_CFLAGS >>>>>>> xen: common: add ability to enable stack protector >>>>>>> xen: arm: enable stack protector feature >>>>>>> CHANGELOG.md: Mention stack-protector feature >>>>>> Reviewed-by: Andrew Cooper<andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> >>>>>> >>>>>> There's one minor formatting error which can be fixed on commit. >>>>>> >>>>>> ~Andrew >>>>> Thanks for the review. I noticed that this series is not committed. Is >>>>> there anything else required from my side? >>>>> >>>> You need an ARM Ack on patch 3. [EDIT], no you don't, my R-by is good >>>> enough. >> Andrew, why it is enough your R-by for patch 3? It seems like it is fully Arm related patch >> and I expect to see Ack from Arm maintainers. Also, there is some comments from Julien. > At a guess Andrew found Volodymyr in the ARM section of maintainers, but > then didn't pay close attention to the R: (rather than M:). My apologies. Yes, I did fail to read the small print. ~Andrew