On 6/4/20 3:29 AM, Tada, Kenta (Sony) wrote:
It conflicts with your new code. We can have an argument on whether IB should
follow how SSB is being handled. Before that is settled,
Thank you for the information.
It conflicts but I think users who read the below document get confused.
Documentation/userspace-api/spec_ctrl.rst.
Especially, seccomp users must know the difference of this implicit
specification
because both IB and SSB are force disabled simultaneously when seccomp is
enabled
without SECCOMP_FILTER_FLAG_SPEC_ALLOW on x86.
What I am saying is that you have to make the argument why your patch is
the right way to do thing and also make sure that the comment is
consistent. Your current patch doesn't do that.
Cheers,
Longman
