On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 02:47:00PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Peter Zijlstra: > > > I'm not sure I read Thomas' comment like that. In my reading keeping the > > PT_NOTE fallback is exactly one of those 'fly workarounds'. By not > > supporting PT_NOTE only the 'fine' people already shit^Hpping this out > > of tree are affected, and we don't have to care about them at all. > > Just to be clear here: There was an ABI document that required PT_NOTE > parsing. URGH. > The Linux kernel does *not* define the x86-64 ABI, it only > implements it. The authoritative source should be the ABI document. > > In this particularly case, so far anyone implementing this ABI extension > tried to provide value by changing it, sometimes successfully. Which > makes me wonder why we even bother to mainatain ABI documentation. The > kernel is just very late to the party. How can the kernel be late to the party if all of this is spinning wheels without kernel support?
