[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1711171107450.1709@nanos>
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2017 11:09:54 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Dave Watson <davejwatson@...com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Andrew Hunter <ahh@...gle.com>,
Chris Lameter <cl@...ux.com>, Ben Maurer <bmaurer@...com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 for 4.15 08/24] Provide cpu_opv system call
On Thu, 16 Nov 2017, Andi Kleen wrote:
> My preference would be just to drop this new super ugly system call.
>
> It's also not just the ugliness, but the very large attack surface
> that worries me here.
>
> As far as I know it is only needed to support single stepping, correct?
I can't figure that out because the changelog describes only WHAT the patch
does and not WHY. Useful, isn't it?
> Then this whole mess would disappear.
Agreed. That would be much appreciated.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists