Hi Christophe, Thank you for your review. On 04/09/2024 17:56, Christophe Leroy wrote: > > > Le 03/09/2024 à 17:14, Vincenzo Frascino a écrit : ... >> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */ >> +#ifndef __ASM_VDSO_MMAN_H >> +#define __ASM_VDSO_MMAN_H >> + >> +#ifndef __ASSEMBLY__ >> + >> +#include <uapi/linux/mman.h> >> + >> +#define VDSO_MMAP_PROT PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE >> +#define VDSO_MMAP_FLAGS MAP_DROPPABLE | MAP_ANONYMOUS > > I still can't see the benefit of duplicating those two defines in every arch. > > I understand your point that some arch might in the future want to use different > flags, but unless we already have one such architecture in mind we shouldn't > make things more complicated than needed. > > In case such an architecture is already identified it should be said in the > commit message > I do not have such an architecture in mind, hence I did not add it to the commit message. Apart being future proof the real problem here is to handle the mman.h header. As Arnd was saying [1] (and I agree), including it on some architectures might be problematic if they change it in a way that is incompatible with compat vdso. In this way we make sure that the each architecture that decides to include it specifically validates it for this purpose. I am not a fan of complicating code either but this seems the lesser evil. I am open to any solution you can come up that is better then this one. The other issue I see is that being these defines in a uapi header that is included directly by userspace splitting it requires some validation to make sure we do not break the status quo. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/cb66b582-ba63-4a5a-9df8-b07288f1f66d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ >> + >> +#endif /* !__ASSEMBLY__ */ >> + >> +#endif /* __ASM_VDSO_MMAN_H */ -- Regards, Vincenzo
