Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Wed, 23 Aug 2023 18:18:47 +0100
From:   Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
To:     Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Cc:     Szabolcs Nagy <Szabolcs.Nagy@arm.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
        Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@linux.dev>,
        James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
        Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
        Eric Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
        "Rick P. Edgecombe" <rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com>,
        Deepak Gupta <debug@rivosinc.com>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>,
        "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
        Albert Ou <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        kvmarm@lists.linux.dev, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 03/36] arm64/gcs: Document the ABI for Guarded Control
 Stacks
Message-ID: <cb449f6e-cebf-44df-8ef4-fa3cd5979b6c@sirena.org.uk>
References: <20230807-arm64-gcs-v4-3-68cfa37f9069@kernel.org>
 <ZNOhjrYleGBR6Pbs@arm.com>
 <f4cec4b3-c386-4873-aa1d-90528e062f2a@sirena.org.uk>
 <ZN+qki9EaZ6f9XNi@arm.com>
 <aaea542c-929c-4c9b-8caa-ca67e0eb9c1e@sirena.org.uk>
 <ZOTnL1SDJWZjHPUW@arm.com>
 <43ec219d-bf20-47b8-a5f8-32bc3b64d487@sirena.org.uk>
 <ZOXa98SqwYPwxzNP@arm.com>
 <227e6552-353c-40a9-86c1-280587a40e3c@sirena.org.uk>
 <ZOY3lz+Zyhd5ZyQ9@arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
        protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="JpUNoCeyjQJaWYxw"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZOY3lz+Zyhd5ZyQ9@arm.com>
Precedence: bulk


--JpUNoCeyjQJaWYxw
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 05:45:11PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:

> I don't mind the divergence in this area if the libc folks are ok with
> it. x86 can eventually use the clone3() interface if they want more
> flexibility, they'll just have to continue supporting the old one. I
> think we already diverge around the prctl().

Yes, though that's basically the same thing - the difference is
basically just that x86 uses their custom arch_prctl() thing and we use
a regular prctl(), there's nothing conceptual going on like there is
here.  I don't really mind either, it's just something where I'd
anticipate pushback.

--JpUNoCeyjQJaWYxw
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAABCgAdFiEEreZoqmdXGLWf4p/qJNaLcl1Uh9AFAmTmP3YACgkQJNaLcl1U
h9AOCwf+OerN1+mzW9/0IjP9fXY5wok+REaliBdQNCxxSEl/snEQ7luADrnORRq8
DT1fhc5ANklKGYAIzyPsjMBAdZi4fR8tKHL3WPuPVqT3qBWcqUSW4R4Mhte3XvDR
PQzkrqEedjqVwOmyg+vdQ/0C4r/QwVXLvNbQVNCKEEFq8F33xIUkf5risFgPn36b
3+Ilc5zXBc4Jk734QUR+g9ql73T33O6Dro5yKxYCXO1dDxv+GkbBWgtYO+mNPWgP
b8entl/O6uaEVlStYe/f9mK7+AH9xFhdE8olsbk4Qi5C1BPQuAy1ZOFuTtF5nFvw
kbzVJrh2uSfkLI7kaAwM2rU12SkyWQ==
=ZWCg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--JpUNoCeyjQJaWYxw--