On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 4:13 PM Max Englander <max.englan...@gmail.com> wrote: > It sounds like there's a decision to be made around whether or not to use > the bitmap feature flags which I probably am probably not in a position to > help decide. However, I'm more than happy to fix my userspace PR so > that it does not rely on the feature flag space using the approach Paul > outlined, in spite of the drawbacks, if that ends up being the decision.
As mentioned several times in the past, I'm not merging a patch which allocates a bitmap entry for this feature. > Separately, since there is tension between these two approaches > (structure size and bitmap), I wonder if Paul/Steve you would be open > to a third way. > > For example, I can imagine adding additional bitmap > spaces (FEATURE_BITMAP_2, FEATURE_BITMAP_3, etc.). > Alternately, I can imagine each feature being assigned a unique u64 > ID, and user space programs querying the kernel to see whether a > a particular feature is enabled. This isn't attractive to me at this point in time. NACK. -- paul moore www.paul-moore.com -- Linux-audit mailing list Linux-audit@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-audit
