linux-kernel - [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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon,  8 Jan 2018 17:27:56 -0800
From:   Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...ive.com>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>
Cc:     patches@...ups.riscv.org, Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...ive.com>,
        Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zanella@...aro.org>
Subject: [RFC] RISC-V: Don't set CLONE_BACKWARDS

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.

CC: Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zanella@...aro.org>
Signed-off-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...ive.com>
---
 arch/riscv/Kconfig | 1 -
 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/arch/riscv/Kconfig b/arch/riscv/Kconfig
index 2c6adf12713a..02076f3a2883 100644
--- a/arch/riscv/Kconfig
+++ b/arch/riscv/Kconfig
@@ -10,7 +10,6 @@ config RISCV
 	select OF_IRQ
 	select ARCH_HAS_ATOMIC64_DEC_IF_POSITIVE
 	select ARCH_WANT_FRAME_POINTERS
-	select CLONE_BACKWARDS
 	select COMMON_CLK
 	select GENERIC_CLOCKEVENTS
 	select GENERIC_CPU_DEVICES
-- 
2.13.6