On Wed, 2020-04-29 at 15:53 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote: > On 4/29/20 3:07 PM, Yu-cheng Yu wrote: > > +Note: > > + There is no CET-enabling arch_prctl function. By design, CET is enabled > > + automatically if the binary and the system can support it. > > I think Andy and I danced around this last time. Let me try to say it > more explicitly. > > I want CET kernel enabling to able to be disconnected from the on-disk > binary. I want a binary compiled with CET to be able to disable it, and > I want a binary not compiled with CET to be able to enable it. I want > different threads in a process to be able to each have different CET status. The kernel patches we have now can be modified to support this model. If after discussion this is favorable, I will modify code accordingly. > Which JITs was this tested with? I think as a bare minimum we need to > know that this design can accommodate _a_ modern JIT. It would be > horrible if the browser javascript engines couldn't use this design, for > instance. JIT work is still in progress. When that is available I will test it. Yu-cheng
