On 07/28/2014 04:42 PM, Kees Cook wrote:

On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 4:34 PM, H. Peter Anvin [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On 07/28/2014 04:29 PM, Kees Cook wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 10:59 AM, H. Peter Anvin [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On 07/23/2014 12:20 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:

quoted

It looks like patches 1-4 have landed here:

https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/kees/linux.git/log/?h=seccomp/fastpath

hpa, what's the route forward for the x86 part?

I guess I should discuss this with Kees to figure out what makes most
sense.  In the meantime, could you address Oleg's question?

Since the x86 parts depend on the seccomp parts, I'm happy if you
carry them instead of having them land from my tree. Otherwise I'm
open to how to coordinate timing.

You mean for me to carry the seccomp part as well?

If that makes sense as far as the coordination, that's fine with me.
Otherwise I'm not sure how x86 can build without having the seccomp
changes in your tree.

Exactly.  What I guess I'll do is set up a separate tip branch for this,
pull your branch into it, and then put the x86 patches on top.  Does
that make sense for everyone?

	-hpa