On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 1:22 PM, Andi Kleen <[email protected]> wrote: >> Given that it doesn't seen to have been committed yet, I'm not too >> worried about compatibility. And "prctl (43)" doesn't actually seem a >> whole lot better than "syscall(SYS_arch_prctl, ARCH_ENABLE_MPX, 0)" > > This would actually fail with the EINVAL change you requested. >
So the libmpx code needs to change anyway, then, right? I really don't think we should accept garbage in the extra prctl slots just because uncommitted code somewhere fails to initialize them. --Andy >> (preprocessor macros ftw!). But I don't feel that strongly about this >> point. > > -Andi -- Andy Lutomirski AMA Capital Management, LLC -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
