[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <188afd4d2e299652da33ad5d4ea743f02fb2ffc5.camel@pengutronix.de>
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2021 11:23:11 +0100
From: Lucas Stach <l.stach@...gutronix.de>
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Dave Airlie <airlied@...il.com>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel: Expose SYS_kcmp by default
Am Samstag, dem 13.02.2021 um 18:40 +0100 schrieb Pavel Machek:
> Hi!
>
> > Userspace has discovered the functionality offered by SYS_kcmp and has
> > started to depend upon it. In particular, Mesa uses SYS_kcmp for
> > os_same_file_description() in order to identify when two fd (e.g. device
> > or dmabuf) point to the same struct file. Since they depend on it for
> > core functionality, lift SYS_kcmp out of the non-default
> > CONFIG_CHECKPOINT_RESTORE into the selectable syscall category.
>
> Is it good idea to enable everything because Mesa uses it for file
> descriptors?
>
> This is really interesting syscall...
As Debian/Ubuntu and Fedora are already shipping with
CONFIG_CHECKPOINT_RESTORE=y in their kernel configs, I don't really see
the need to add further restrictions here. Or this discussion should
have happened a while ago...
Regards,
Lucas
Powered by blists - more mailing lists