linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] arm64/sve: <uapi/asm/ptrace.h> should not depend on <uapi/linux/prctl.h>

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

Message-ID: <20190614102355.GE10659@fuggles.cambridge.arm.com>
Date:   Fri, 14 Jun 2019 11:23:55 +0100
From:   Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
To:     Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>
Cc:     Anisse Astier <aastier@...ebox.fr>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@...aro.org>,
        Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Kristina Martsenko <kristina.martsenko@....com>,
        "Dmitry V . Levin" <ldv@...linux.org>,
        Ricardo Salveti <ricardo@...ndries.io>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64/sve: <uapi/asm/ptrace.h> should not depend on
 <uapi/linux/prctl.h>

On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 06:14:44PM +0100, Dave Martin wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 06:38:01PM +0200, Anisse Astier wrote:
> >   */
> > -#define SVE_PT_VL_INHERIT		(PR_SVE_VL_INHERIT >> 16)
> > -#define SVE_PT_VL_ONEXEC		(PR_SVE_SET_VL_ONEXEC >> 16)
> > +#define SVE_PT_VL_INHERIT		(1 << 1) /* PR_SVE_VL_INHERIT */
> > +#define SVE_PT_VL_ONEXEC		(1 << 2) /* PR_SVE_SET_VL_ONEXEC */
> 
> Makes sense, but...
> 
> Since sve_context.h was already introduced to solve a closely related
> problem, I wonder whether we can provide shadow definitions there,
> similarly to way the arm64/include/uapi/asm/ptrace.h definitions are
> derived.  Although it's a slight abuse of that header, I think that
> would be my preferred approach.

Yes, that sounds better to me as well. Please send a v2!

Will