| Message ID | 20190110175150.5239-1-dave.long@linaro.org |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | V4.14 backport of more 32-bit arm spectre patches | expand |
On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 12:51:33PM -0500, David Long wrote: > From: "David A. Long" <dave.long@linaro.org> > > V4.14 backport of spectre patches from Russell M. King's spectre branch. If I take these, than 4.19 is vulnerable. So someone upgrading from 4.14 to 4.19 will regress :( Can you please send me a 4.19 series so I can apply that before this one? thanks, greg k-h
On 1/15/19 10:45 AM, Greg KH wrote: > On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 12:51:33PM -0500, David Long wrote: >> From: "David A. Long" <dave.long@linaro.org> >> >> V4.14 backport of spectre patches from Russell M. King's spectre branch. > > If I take these, than 4.19 is vulnerable. So someone upgrading from > 4.14 to 4.19 will regress :( > > Can you please send me a 4.19 series so I can apply that before this > one? > > thanks, > > greg k-h > OK, didn't think about that being a problem. Working on it. Pretty sure there's exactly one patch needed for that. -dl
On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 11:07:08AM -0500, David Long wrote: > On 1/15/19 10:45 AM, Greg KH wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 12:51:33PM -0500, David Long wrote: > > > From: "David A. Long" <dave.long@linaro.org> > > > > > > V4.14 backport of spectre patches from Russell M. King's spectre branch. > > > > If I take these, than 4.19 is vulnerable. So someone upgrading from > > 4.14 to 4.19 will regress :( > > > > Can you please send me a 4.19 series so I can apply that before this > > one? > > > > thanks, > > > > greg k-h > > > > > OK, didn't think about that being a problem. Working on it. Pretty sure > there's exactly one patch needed for that. one? All of these except one showed up in 4.20 and were not backported to 4.19 from what I can tell. The last one is in 5.0-rc1 and not even backported to 4.20 either, which means someone messed up and didn't tag it properly with a cc: stable patch :( thanks, greg k-h
On 1/15/19 11:30 AM, Greg KH wrote: > On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 11:07:08AM -0500, David Long wrote: >> On 1/15/19 10:45 AM, Greg KH wrote: >>> On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 12:51:33PM -0500, David Long wrote: >>>> From: "David A. Long" <dave.long@linaro.org> >>>> >>>> V4.14 backport of spectre patches from Russell M. King's spectre branch. >>> >>> If I take these, than 4.19 is vulnerable. So someone upgrading from >>> 4.14 to 4.19 will regress :( >>> >>> Can you please send me a 4.19 series so I can apply that before this >>> one? >>> >>> thanks, >>> >>> greg k-h >>> >> >> >> OK, didn't think about that being a problem. Working on it. Pretty sure >> there's exactly one patch needed for that. > > one? All of these except one showed up in 4.20 and were not backported > to 4.19 from what I can tell. The last one is in 5.0-rc1 and not even > backported to 4.20 either, which means someone messed up and didn't tag > it properly with a cc: stable patch :( > > thanks, > > greg k-h > OK, I will give it good looking over at any rate. -dl
On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 05:30:51PM +0100, Greg KH wrote: > On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 11:07:08AM -0500, David Long wrote: > > On 1/15/19 10:45 AM, Greg KH wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 12:51:33PM -0500, David Long wrote: > > > > From: "David A. Long" <dave.long@linaro.org> > > > > > > > > V4.14 backport of spectre patches from Russell M. King's spectre branch. > > > > > > If I take these, than 4.19 is vulnerable. So someone upgrading from > > > 4.14 to 4.19 will regress :( > > > > > > Can you please send me a 4.19 series so I can apply that before this > > > one? > > > > > > thanks, > > > > > > greg k-h > > > > > > > > > OK, didn't think about that being a problem. Working on it. Pretty sure > > there's exactly one patch needed for that. > > one? All of these except one showed up in 4.20 and were not backported > to 4.19 from what I can tell. The last one is in 5.0-rc1 and not even > backported to 4.20 either, which means someone messed up and didn't tag > it properly with a cc: stable patch :( Or they didn't think it was important enough to warrant backporting. -- RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/ FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line in suburbia: sync at 12.1Mbps down 622kbps up According to speedtest.net: 11.9Mbps down 500kbps up
On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 05:06:59PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote: > On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 05:30:51PM +0100, Greg KH wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 11:07:08AM -0500, David Long wrote: > > > On 1/15/19 10:45 AM, Greg KH wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 12:51:33PM -0500, David Long wrote: > > > > > From: "David A. Long" <dave.long@linaro.org> > > > > > > > > > > V4.14 backport of spectre patches from Russell M. King's spectre branch. > > > > > > > > If I take these, than 4.19 is vulnerable. So someone upgrading from > > > > 4.14 to 4.19 will regress :( > > > > > > > > Can you please send me a 4.19 series so I can apply that before this > > > > one? > > > > > > > > thanks, > > > > > > > > greg k-h > > > > > > > > > > > > > OK, didn't think about that being a problem. Working on it. Pretty sure > > > there's exactly one patch needed for that. > > > > one? All of these except one showed up in 4.20 and were not backported > > to 4.19 from what I can tell. The last one is in 5.0-rc1 and not even > > backported to 4.20 either, which means someone messed up and didn't tag > > it properly with a cc: stable patch :( > > Or they didn't think it was important enough to warrant backporting. Fair enough, then I have to ask why it's included in this series at all... thanks, greg k-h
On 1/15/19 12:19 PM, Greg KH wrote: > On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 05:06:59PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 05:30:51PM +0100, Greg KH wrote: >>> On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 11:07:08AM -0500, David Long wrote: >>>> On 1/15/19 10:45 AM, Greg KH wrote: >>>>> On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 12:51:33PM -0500, David Long wrote: >>>>>> From: "David A. Long" <dave.long@linaro.org> >>>>>> >>>>>> V4.14 backport of spectre patches from Russell M. King's spectre branch. >>>>> >>>>> If I take these, than 4.19 is vulnerable. So someone upgrading from >>>>> 4.14 to 4.19 will regress :( >>>>> >>>>> Can you please send me a 4.19 series so I can apply that before this >>>>> one? >>>>> >>>>> thanks, >>>>> >>>>> greg k-h >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> OK, didn't think about that being a problem. Working on it. Pretty sure >>>> there's exactly one patch needed for that. >>> >>> one? All of these except one showed up in 4.20 and were not backported >>> to 4.19 from what I can tell. The last one is in 5.0-rc1 and not even >>> backported to 4.20 either, which means someone messed up and didn't tag >>> it properly with a cc: stable patch :( >> My bad, I see now I was looking at v4.20 when I made that comment, not v4.19. >> Or they didn't think it was important enough to warrant backporting. > > Fair enough, then I have to ask why it's included in this series at > all... > I've been backporting all "spectre" branch patches as kept in the linux-arm repo, with the assumption they're all important. If the last patch is not deemed worthy of going into stable now would be a good time to declare it so as I have patch sets for v4.19 and v4.9 stable versions about ready to publish. > thanks, > > greg k-h > Thanks, -dl
On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 02:27:13PM -0500, David Long wrote: > On 1/15/19 12:19 PM, Greg KH wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 05:06:59PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 05:30:51PM +0100, Greg KH wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 11:07:08AM -0500, David Long wrote: > > > > > On 1/15/19 10:45 AM, Greg KH wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 12:51:33PM -0500, David Long wrote: > > > > > > > From: "David A. Long" <dave.long@linaro.org> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > V4.14 backport of spectre patches from Russell M. King's spectre branch. > > > > > > > > > > > > If I take these, than 4.19 is vulnerable. So someone upgrading from > > > > > > 4.14 to 4.19 will regress :( > > > > > > > > > > > > Can you please send me a 4.19 series so I can apply that before this > > > > > > one? > > > > > > > > > > > > thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > greg k-h > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > OK, didn't think about that being a problem. Working on it. Pretty sure > > > > > there's exactly one patch needed for that. > > > > > > > > one? All of these except one showed up in 4.20 and were not backported > > > > to 4.19 from what I can tell. The last one is in 5.0-rc1 and not even > > > > backported to 4.20 either, which means someone messed up and didn't tag > > > > it properly with a cc: stable patch :( > > > > > My bad, I see now I was looking at v4.20 when I made that comment, not > v4.19. > > > > Or they didn't think it was important enough to warrant backporting. > > > > Fair enough, then I have to ask why it's included in this series at > > all... > > > > I've been backporting all "spectre" branch patches as kept in the linux-arm > repo, with the assumption they're all important. If the last patch is not > deemed worthy of going into stable now would be a good time to declare it so > as I have patch sets for v4.19 and v4.9 stable versions about ready to > publish. Isn't it up to you to determine what is and is not important to get this all working properly? You are testing all of this, right? :) thanks, greg k-h
On 1/16/19 2:33 PM, Greg KH wrote: > On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 02:27:13PM -0500, David Long wrote: >> On 1/15/19 12:19 PM, Greg KH wrote: >>> On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 05:06:59PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote: >>>> On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 05:30:51PM +0100, Greg KH wrote: >>>>> On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 11:07:08AM -0500, David Long wrote: >>>>>> On 1/15/19 10:45 AM, Greg KH wrote: >>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 12:51:33PM -0500, David Long wrote: >>>>>>>> From: "David A. Long" <dave.long@linaro.org> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> V4.14 backport of spectre patches from Russell M. King's spectre branch. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If I take these, than 4.19 is vulnerable. So someone upgrading from >>>>>>> 4.14 to 4.19 will regress :( >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Can you please send me a 4.19 series so I can apply that before this >>>>>>> one? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> thanks, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> greg k-h >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> OK, didn't think about that being a problem. Working on it. Pretty sure >>>>>> there's exactly one patch needed for that. >>>>> >>>>> one? All of these except one showed up in 4.20 and were not backported >>>>> to 4.19 from what I can tell. The last one is in 5.0-rc1 and not even >>>>> backported to 4.20 either, which means someone messed up and didn't tag >>>>> it properly with a cc: stable patch :( >>>> >> >> My bad, I see now I was looking at v4.20 when I made that comment, not >> v4.19. >> >>>> Or they didn't think it was important enough to warrant backporting. >>> >>> Fair enough, then I have to ask why it's included in this series at >>> all... >>> >> >> I've been backporting all "spectre" branch patches as kept in the linux-arm >> repo, with the assumption they're all important. If the last patch is not >> deemed worthy of going into stable now would be a good time to declare it so >> as I have patch sets for v4.19 and v4.9 stable versions about ready to >> publish. > > Isn't it up to you to determine what is and is not important to get this > all working properly? You are testing all of this, right? :) > It is all going through kernelci and a local kvm unit test. The last patch in this set exists to fix a (apparently) non-critical regression in a security patch preceding it. How worried are we about patches to stable introducing regressions? My assumption was that this is a bad enough thing to be fixed, but maybe not. > thanks, > > greg k-h > Thanks, -dl
On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 02:40:10PM -0500, David Long wrote: > On 1/16/19 2:33 PM, Greg KH wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 02:27:13PM -0500, David Long wrote: > > > On 1/15/19 12:19 PM, Greg KH wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 05:06:59PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 05:30:51PM +0100, Greg KH wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 11:07:08AM -0500, David Long wrote: > > > > > > > On 1/15/19 10:45 AM, Greg KH wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 12:51:33PM -0500, David Long wrote: > > > > > > > > > From: "David A. Long" <dave.long@linaro.org> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > V4.14 backport of spectre patches from Russell M. King's spectre branch. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If I take these, than 4.19 is vulnerable. So someone upgrading from > > > > > > > > 4.14 to 4.19 will regress :( > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can you please send me a 4.19 series so I can apply that before this > > > > > > > > one? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > greg k-h > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > OK, didn't think about that being a problem. Working on it. Pretty sure > > > > > > > there's exactly one patch needed for that. > > > > > > > > > > > > one? All of these except one showed up in 4.20 and were not backported > > > > > > to 4.19 from what I can tell. The last one is in 5.0-rc1 and not even > > > > > > backported to 4.20 either, which means someone messed up and didn't tag > > > > > > it properly with a cc: stable patch :( > > > > > > > > > > > My bad, I see now I was looking at v4.20 when I made that comment, not > > > v4.19. > > > > > > > > Or they didn't think it was important enough to warrant backporting. > > > > > > > > Fair enough, then I have to ask why it's included in this series at > > > > all... > > > > > > > > > > I've been backporting all "spectre" branch patches as kept in the linux-arm > > > repo, with the assumption they're all important. If the last patch is not > > > deemed worthy of going into stable now would be a good time to declare it so > > > as I have patch sets for v4.19 and v4.9 stable versions about ready to > > > publish. > > > > Isn't it up to you to determine what is and is not important to get this > > all working properly? You are testing all of this, right? :) > > > > It is all going through kernelci and a local kvm unit test. That just tests if you didn't break anything, how are you testing that you really are mitigating the issue that you think you are fixing? What spectre-specific tests are you using to validate all of this? > The last patch in this set exists to fix a (apparently) non-critical > regression in a security patch preceding it. How worried are we about > patches to stable introducing regressions? My assumption was that this is a > bad enough thing to be fixed, but maybe not. You tell me, what is the result if that patch is not applied? Is it a bug? Performance issue? Documentation issue? Something else? I understand why it was fixed (cleanups are good to do), but you need to determine if what the cleanup is doing is actually something that matters. thanks, greg k-h
On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 02:27:13PM -0500, David Long wrote: > On 1/15/19 12:19 PM, Greg KH wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 05:06:59PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 05:30:51PM +0100, Greg KH wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 11:07:08AM -0500, David Long wrote: > > > > > On 1/15/19 10:45 AM, Greg KH wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 12:51:33PM -0500, David Long wrote: > > > > > > > From: "David A. Long" <dave.long@linaro.org> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > V4.14 backport of spectre patches from Russell M. King's spectre branch. > > > > > > > > > > > > If I take these, than 4.19 is vulnerable. So someone upgrading from > > > > > > 4.14 to 4.19 will regress :( > > > > > > > > > > > > Can you please send me a 4.19 series so I can apply that before this > > > > > > one? > > > > > > > > > > > > thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > greg k-h > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > OK, didn't think about that being a problem. Working on it. Pretty sure > > > > > there's exactly one patch needed for that. > > > > > > > > one? All of these except one showed up in 4.20 and were not backported > > > > to 4.19 from what I can tell. The last one is in 5.0-rc1 and not even > > > > backported to 4.20 either, which means someone messed up and didn't tag > > > > it properly with a cc: stable patch :( > > > > > My bad, I see now I was looking at v4.20 when I made that comment, not > v4.19. > > > > Or they didn't think it was important enough to warrant backporting. > > > > Fair enough, then I have to ask why it's included in this series at > > all... > > > > I've been backporting all "spectre" branch patches as kept in the linux-arm > repo, with the assumption they're all important. If the last patch is not > deemed worthy of going into stable now would be a good time to declare it so > as I have patch sets for v4.19 and v4.9 stable versions about ready to > publish. Let me be absolutely clear: The final patch is a minor fix for the previous patch. I do not consider it important enough to warrant backporting to 4.19 on an automated basis - if it was important, I could have sent it to Linus before 4.19 was released. That is not to say that there is no reason not to apply it to 4.19, I just don't deem it important enough to have a Cc to stable (especially as *none* of the ARM Spectre patches have a Cc to stable.) If someone does want to request that the stable team pick it up for 4.19, then that's fine by me. If we are going to the effort of backporting the rest of the series to kernels such as 4.14, it is worth picking it up for those with the rest of the patches as it avoids unintentionally always placing data in the .rodata section that could otherwise be discarded under certain configurations. However, the saving from having it in the init sections is normally minimal - in terms of the size of the kernel, the per-processor type data structure is rather small. We are talking around 256 bytes in an ARMv7 kernel. It only makes sense for kernels with big.Little disabled or the Spectre workarounds disabled (since we need this data in the .rodata section for big.Little kernels with Spectre workarounds enabled). All other configurations, this data can be located in the init sections. The patch is more a correctness issue with the previous patch in terms of the placement of the affected data. I get the feeling that we're making something of a mountain out of a molehill over this really trivial patch. -- RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/ FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line in suburbia: sync at 12.1Mbps down 622kbps up According to speedtest.net: 11.9Mbps down 500kbps up
On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 12:51:33PM -0500, David Long wrote: > From: "David A. Long" <dave.long@linaro.org> > > V4.14 backport of spectre patches from Russell M. King's spectre branch. Based on some recent private email threads I had about this series, here is what I would like to see for the next time this is posted: - Patch series such that someone moving from one tree to a newer one does not experience regressions (i.e. a 4.19 version of this series, and 4.20 where needed.) - a statement saying how this was tested. As part of that statement, there better be something like "we tested using our reproducer and it shows that there is no longer an issue." Yes, I know Spectre reproducers are hard to come by, but they are out there and I do not want to take a patch series that is not at least tested for the thing that it is supposed to be solving. thanks, greg k-h
On 1/18/19 11:07 AM, Greg KH wrote: > On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 12:51:33PM -0500, David Long wrote: >> From: "David A. Long" <dave.long@linaro.org> >> >> V4.14 backport of spectre patches from Russell M. King's spectre branch. > > Based on some recent private email threads I had about this series, here > is what I would like to see for the next time this is posted: > > - Patch series such that someone moving from one tree to a newer one > does not experience regressions (i.e. a 4.19 version of this series, > and 4.20 where needed.) The v4.19 and v4.9 versions are ready. Not sure I understand why there would be a need for a v4.20 version even if it is one patch shy. > > - a statement saying how this was tested. As part of that statement, > there better be something like "we tested using our reproducer and it > shows that there is no longer an issue." Yes, I know Spectre > reproducers are hard to come by, but they are out there and I do not > want to take a patch series that is not at least tested for the thing > that it is supposed to be solving. > I'll see what I can figure out for spectre testing but at best this stuff is pretty non-deterministic. -dl
On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 03:24:01PM -0500, David Long wrote: > On 1/18/19 11:07 AM, Greg KH wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 12:51:33PM -0500, David Long wrote: > > > From: "David A. Long" <dave.long@linaro.org> > > > > > > V4.14 backport of spectre patches from Russell M. King's spectre branch. > > > > Based on some recent private email threads I had about this series, here > > is what I would like to see for the next time this is posted: > > > > - Patch series such that someone moving from one tree to a newer one > > does not experience regressions (i.e. a 4.19 version of this series, > > and 4.20 where needed.) > > The v4.19 and v4.9 versions are ready. Not sure I understand why there would > be a need for a v4.20 version even if it is one patch shy. Then backport that one patch :)
On Sat, Jan 19, 2019 at 09:08:51AM +0100, Greg KH wrote: > On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 03:24:01PM -0500, David Long wrote: > > On 1/18/19 11:07 AM, Greg KH wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 12:51:33PM -0500, David Long wrote: > > > > From: "David A. Long" <dave.long@linaro.org> > > > > > > > > V4.14 backport of spectre patches from Russell M. King's spectre branch. > > > > > > Based on some recent private email threads I had about this series, here > > > is what I would like to see for the next time this is posted: > > > > > > - Patch series such that someone moving from one tree to a newer one > > > does not experience regressions (i.e. a 4.19 version of this series, > > > and 4.20 where needed.) > > > > The v4.19 and v4.9 versions are ready. Not sure I understand why there would > > be a need for a v4.20 version even if it is one patch shy. > > Then backport that one patch :) You could just pick the patch up - it'll cherry-pick just fine across onto 4.19, so it should be trivial just like all the others that get automatically picked out of mainline that don't have a Cc to stable. -- RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/ FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line in suburbia: sync at 12.1Mbps down 622kbps up According to speedtest.net: 11.9Mbps down 500kbps up
From: "David A. Long" <dave.long@linaro.org> V4.14 backport of spectre patches from Russell M. King's spectre branch. Julien Thierry (10): ARM: 8789/1: signal: copy registers using __copy_to_user() ARM: 8790/1: signal: always use __copy_to_user to save iwmmxt context ARM: 8791/1: vfp: use __copy_to_user() when saving VFP state ARM: 8792/1: oabi-compat: copy oabi events using __copy_to_user() ARM: 8793/1: signal: replace __put_user_error with __put_user ARM: 8794/1: uaccess: Prevent speculative use of the current addr_limit ARM: 8795/1: spectre-v1.1: use put_user() for __put_user() ARM: 8796/1: spectre-v1,v1.1: provide helpers for address sanitization ARM: 8797/1: spectre-v1.1: harden __copy_to_user ARM: 8810/1: vfp: Fix wrong assignement to ufp_exc Russell King (7): ARM: make lookup_processor_type() non-__init ARM: split out processor lookup ARM: clean up per-processor check_bugs method call ARM: add PROC_VTABLE and PROC_TABLE macros ARM: spectre-v2: per-CPU vtables to work around big.Little systems ARM: ensure that processor vtables is not lost after boot ARM: fix the cockup in the previous patch arch/arm/include/asm/assembler.h | 11 ++++ arch/arm/include/asm/cputype.h | 1 + arch/arm/include/asm/proc-fns.h | 61 ++++++++++++++++++----- arch/arm/include/asm/thread_info.h | 4 +- arch/arm/include/asm/uaccess.h | 49 +++++++++++++++--- arch/arm/kernel/bugs.c | 4 +- arch/arm/kernel/head-common.S | 6 +-- arch/arm/kernel/setup.c | 40 +++++++++------ arch/arm/kernel/signal.c | 80 ++++++++++++++++-------------- arch/arm/kernel/smp.c | 31 ++++++++++++ arch/arm/kernel/sys_oabi-compat.c | 8 ++- arch/arm/lib/copy_from_user.S | 6 +-- arch/arm/lib/copy_to_user.S | 6 ++- arch/arm/lib/uaccess_with_memcpy.c | 3 +- arch/arm/mm/proc-macros.S | 10 ++++ arch/arm/mm/proc-v7-bugs.c | 17 +------ arch/arm/vfp/vfpmodule.c | 20 +++----- 17 files changed, 245 insertions(+), 112 deletions(-) -- 2.17.1