On Sun, Feb 7, 2021 at 3:09 PM Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 07, 2021 at 09:07:02AM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 4:43 PM H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 7:16 AM Kirill A. Shutemov > > > <kirill.shutemov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > Provide prctl() interface to enabled LAM for user addresses. Depending > > > > how many tag bits requested it may result in enabling LAM_U57 or > > > > LAM_U48. > > > > > > I prefer the alternate kernel interface based on CET arch_prctl interface which > > > is implemented in glibc on users/intel/lam/master branch: > > > > > > https://gitlab.com/x86-glibc/glibc/-/tree/users/intel/lam/master > > > > > > and in GCC on users/intel/lam/master branch: > > > > > > https://gitlab.com/x86-gcc/gcc/-/tree/users/intel/lam/master > > > > Hi Kirill, H.J., > > > > I don't have strong preference for PR_SET/GET_TAGGED_ADDR_CTRL vs > > ARCH_X86_FEATURE_1_ENABLE itself, but tying LAM to ELF and > > GNU_PROPERTY in the second option looks strange. LAM can be used > > outside of ELF/GNU, right? > > Sure. In both cases it's still a syscall. Oh, I meant just the naming scheme. The consts are declared in elf.h and are prefixed with GNU_PROPERTY.
