Re: [PATCH 4/8] arm64: Basic Branch Target Identification support
From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Date: 2019-06-06 17:12:03
Also in:
linux-arch, lkml
On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 03:53:06PM +0100, Dave P Martin wrote:
On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 02:02:17PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:quoted
On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 11:25:29AM +0100, Dave Martin wrote:quoted
#endif /* _UAPI__ASM_HWCAP_H */diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/mman.h b/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/mman.h new file mode 100644 index 0000000..4776b43 --- /dev/null +++ b/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/mman.h@@ -0,0 +1,9 @@ +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note */ +#ifndef _UAPI__ASM_MMAN_H +#define _UAPI__ASM_MMAN_H + +#include <asm-generic/mman.h> + +#define PROT_BTI_GUARDED 0x10 /* BTI guarded page */From prior discussions, I thought this would be PROT_BTI, without the _GUARDED suffix. Do we really need that? AFAICT, all other PROT_* definitions only have a single underscore, and the existing arch-specific flags are PROT_ADI on sparc, and PROT_SAO on powerpc.No strong opinon. I was trying to make the name less obscure, but I'm equally happy with PROT_BTI if people prefer that.
I prefer PROT_BTI as well. We are going to add a PROT_MTE at some point (and a VM_ARM64_MTE in the high VMA flag bits). -- Catalin _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel