linux-kernel - Re: [patches] [RFC] RISC-V: Don't set CLONE

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <mhng-e44b0ba0-830a-4a4a-b8fb-a9b18ccf1ae9@palmer-si-x1c4>
Date:   Tue, 09 Jan 2018 00:20:59 -0800 (PST)
From:   Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...ive.com>
To:     hch@....de
CC:     patches@...ups.riscv.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
        adhemerval.zanella@...aro.org
Subject:     Re: [patches] [RFC] RISC-V: Don't set CLONE_BACKWARDS

On Tue, 09 Jan 2018 00:11:45 PST (-0800), hch@....de wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 08, 2018 at 05:27:56PM -0800, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
>> During the glibc upstreaming it was suggested that CLONE_BACKWARDS was a
>> deprecated ABI decision.  I think we just copied it from ARM, but I
>> don't see any reason to favor one over the other.
>>
>> While we haven't released yet so I think it's still legal to change our
>> ABI, I'd actually kind of prefer to avoid changing our ABI this late in
>> the game.  I guess this is more of an RFC than a patch: is there a
>> reason to avoid CLONE_BACKWARDS?
>>
>> Note that I haven't tried any of this -- I'll give it some thourough
>> testing and submit an actual patch if this is the way we want to go.
>
> I see absolutely no reason to change this.  Linux currently has 30
> architecture port, out of which 10 (including riscv, i386, arm and arm64)
> set CLONE_BACKWARDS.
>
> There are no performance benefits of doing it one way or another, and
> changing it now will break all the riscv enablement that's been going
> on.

OK, works for me!  Unless anyone has a strong argument against CLONE_BACKWARDS 
we're just going to leave it alone.