On Thu, 2019-06-06 at 18:23 +0100, Dave Martin wrote: > On Thu, Jun 06, 2019 at 06:11:56PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 03:53:06PM +0100, Dave P Martin wrote: > > > On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 02:02:17PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > > > > On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 11:25:29AM +0100, Dave Martin wrote: > > > > > #endif /* _UAPI__ASM_HWCAP_H */ > > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/mman.h > > > > > b/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/mman.h > > > > > new file mode 100644 > > > > > index 0000000..4776b43 > > > > > --- /dev/null > > > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/mman.h > > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@ > > > > > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note */ > > > > > +#ifndef _UAPI__ASM_MMAN_H > > > > > +#define _UAPI__ASM_MMAN_H > > > > > + > > > > > +#include <asm-generic/mman.h> > > > > > + > > > > > +#define PROT_BTI_GUARDED 0x10 /* BTI guarded > > > > > page */ > > > > > > > > From prior discussions, I thought this would be PROT_BTI, without the > > > > _GUARDED suffix. Do we really need that? > > > > > > > > AFAICT, all other PROT_* definitions only have a single underscore, and > > > > the existing arch-specific flags are PROT_ADI on sparc, and PROT_SAO on > > > > powerpc. > > > > > > No strong opinon. I was trying to make the name less obscure, but I'm > > > equally happy with PROT_BTI if people prefer that. > > > > I prefer PROT_BTI as well. We are going to add a PROT_MTE at some point > > (and a VM_ARM64_MTE in the high VMA flag bits). > > Ack. > > Some things need attention, so I need to respin this series anyway. > > skip_faulting_instruction() and kprobes/uprobes may need looking at, > plus I want to simply the ELF parsing (at least to skip some cost for > arm64). Can we add a case in the 'consistency checks for the interpreter' (right above where you add arch_parse_property()) for PT_NOTE? That way you can still use part of the same parser. Yu-cheng
