[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150106213900.GX2915@two.firstfloor.org>
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2015 22:39:00 +0100
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
ilya.enkovich@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3.19 3/3] x86, mpx: Change the MPX enable/disable API
to arch_prctl
On Tue, Jan 06, 2015 at 01:34:56PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 1:22 PM, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> wrote:
> >> Given that it doesn't seen to have been committed yet, I'm not too
> >> worried about compatibility. And "prctl (43)" doesn't actually seem a
> >> whole lot better than "syscall(SYS_arch_prctl, ARCH_ENABLE_MPX, 0)"
> >
> > This would actually fail with the EINVAL change you requested.
> >
>
> So the libmpx code needs to change anyway, then, right? I really
> don't think we should accept garbage in the extra prctl slots just
> because uncommitted code somewhere fails to initialize them.
Yes it would.
I think that is why most prctls don't do it. After all if you need a new
field you can just add another one. I usually added the checks in the
ones I added, but I can see why not doing it.
-Andi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists