On Thu, May 12 2022 at 20:05, Dave Hansen wrote: > On 5/12/22 18:27, Thomas Gleixner wrote: >> On Thu, May 12 2022 at 17:46, Dave Hansen wrote: >>> On 5/12/22 17:08, H.J. Lu wrote: >>> If I had to take a shot at this today, I think I'd opt for: >>> >>> mask = sys_enable_masking(bits=6, flags=FUZZY_NR_BITS); >>> >>> although I'm not super confident about the "fuzzy" flag. I also don't >>> think I'd totally hate the "blind" interface where the kernel just gets >>> to pick unilaterally and takes zero input from userspace. >> That's the only sane choice and you can make it simple for userspace: >> >> ret = prctl(GET_XXX_MASK, &mask); >> >> and then let it decide based on @ret and @mask whether to use it or not. >> >> But of course nobody thought about this as a generic feature and so we >> have the ARM64 TBI muck as a precedence. > > Well, not quite *nobody*: > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/7a34470c-73f0-26ac-e63d-161191d4b1e4@xxxxxxxxx/ Sigh....
