Le 30/01/2017 à 15:51, Russell King - ARM Linux a écrit : > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 05:52:45PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 03:58:37PM +0100, Nicolas Dichtel wrote: >>> This header file is exported, thus move it to uapi. >> >> Why? Why is this damn thing exported in the first place? >> >> The moment we decide to change an MSR name or even remove it from that >> file, we break userspace. And what for, because userspace is using some >> arbitrary header file which was meant to be for the kernel solely. >> >> NAKed-by: Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxx> > > Here on my Fedora system: > > $ less /usr/include/asm/msr-index.h > #ifndef _ASM_X86_MSR_INDEX_H > #define _ASM_X86_MSR_INDEX_H > > /* CPU model specific register (MSR) numbers */ > > /* x86-64 specific MSRs */ > #define MSR_EFER 0xc0000080 /* extended feature register */ > #define MSR_STAR 0xc0000081 /* legacy mode SYSCALL target */ > #define MSR_LSTAR 0xc0000082 /* long mode SYSCALL target */ > ... > > Like it or not, it is _already_ exported to userspace, so it forms > part of the user ABI. You can try to remove it from userspace view, > but if anyone has already started to use it, removing it will already > cause a userspace regression. > > So, I don't think we have any grounds to NAK these patches on the > basis of "we don't want this to be visible to userspace because it > may cause a userspace regression." Removing it from userspace view > is likely to cause a userspace regression. > > This patch just makes sure that such a regression doesn't happen when > kbuild stops exporting files in _non_-uapi directories. Yes, it was the only goal. My patch changes nothing! Is it possible to find a consensus about this patch? Ingo ? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
