This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: V4 [PATCH 04/12] x86/CET: Extend arch_prctl syscall for CET control
- From: Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- To: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Carlos O'Donell <carlos at redhat dot com>, GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2018 16:45:55 +0000
- Subject: Re: V4 [PATCH 04/12] x86/CET: Extend arch_prctl syscall for CET control
- References: <CAMe9rOqKkgBp7PN9m-L7-r33brXO+Eu_=-7n74B=nS9FEujJhQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, 24 Jul 2018, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 8:56 AM, Joseph Myers <email@example.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 24 Jul 2018, H.J. Lu wrote:
> >> CET arch_prctl bits should be defined in <asm/prctl.h> from Linux kernel
> >> header files. Here is the updated patch to add x86 <include/asm/prctl.h>.
> >> OK for master?
> > I don't think the relevant condition for removing such a wrapper is "after
> > the CET kernel interface has been committed into the public kernel". It's
> > after we require kernel headers recent enough to have that interface,
> > which may well be several years away. Once the interface has been
> > committed into the public kernel, the wrapper should be updated to name
> > the kernel version that has it and to say it should be removed once we
> > require kernel headers at least that recent.
> Like this?
That's the sort of comment I'd expect, yes (this is not otherwise a review
of the patch).
Joseph S. Myers