| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <20180109012756.2401-1-palmer@sifive.com>
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists