[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200421200237.GF608746@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2020 13:02:37 -0700
From: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
"Bae, Chang Seok" <chang.seok.bae@...el.com>,
"Metzger, Markus T" <markus.t.metzger@...el.com>,
"hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>, "bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>,
"Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Pedro Alves <palves@...hat.com>,
Simon Marchi <simark@...ark.ca>,
"Shankar, Ravi V" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 00/17] Enable FSGSBASE instructions
> The very early versions had severely problematic ABIs. The new ones are probably okay except for, maybe, ptrace. If we had merged the old ones, then we might have gotten stuck with the old, problematic ABI.
This is beyond vague. Is there a problem with the ABI or not?
If yes please point it out in an actionable concrete way that it can
be addressed.
If not there shouldn't be any reason to further block it.
Thanks
-Andi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists