On Tue, Jan 06, 2015 at 01:34:56PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 1:22 PM, Andi Kleen <a...@firstfloor.org> wrote: > >> Given that it doesn't seen to have been committed yet, I'm not too > >> worried about compatibility. And "prctl (43)" doesn't actually seem a > >> whole lot better than "syscall(SYS_arch_prctl, ARCH_ENABLE_MPX, 0)" > > > > This would actually fail with the EINVAL change you requested. > > > > So the libmpx code needs to change anyway, then, right? I really > don't think we should accept garbage in the extra prctl slots just > because uncommitted code somewhere fails to initialize them.
Yes it would. I think that is why most prctls don't do it. After all if you need a new field you can just add another one. I usually added the checks in the ones I added, but I can see why not doing it. -Andi -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
