Le 30/01/2017 à 15:51, Russell King - ARM Linux a écrit :
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 05:52:45PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 03:58:37PM +0100, Nicolas Dichtel wrote:
>>> This header file is exported, thus move it to uapi.
>>
>> Why? Why is this damn thing exported in the first place?
>>
>> The moment we decide to change an MSR name or even remove it from that
>> file, we break userspace. And what for, because userspace is using some
>> arbitrary header file which was meant to be for the kernel solely.
>>
>> NAKed-by: Borislav Petkov <b...@suse.de>
>
> Here on my Fedora system:
>
> $ less /usr/include/asm/msr-index.h
> #ifndef _ASM_X86_MSR_INDEX_H
> #define _ASM_X86_MSR_INDEX_H
>
> /* CPU model specific register (MSR) numbers */
>
> /* x86-64 specific MSRs */
> #define MSR_EFER 0xc0000080 /* extended feature register */
> #define MSR_STAR 0xc0000081 /* legacy mode SYSCALL target */
> #define MSR_LSTAR 0xc0000082 /* long mode SYSCALL target */
> ...
>
> Like it or not, it is _already_ exported to userspace, so it forms
> part of the user ABI. You can try to remove it from userspace view,
> but if anyone has already started to use it, removing it will already
> cause a userspace regression.
>
> So, I don't think we have any grounds to NAK these patches on the
> basis of "we don't want this to be visible to userspace because it
> may cause a userspace regression." Removing it from userspace view
> is likely to cause a userspace regression.
>
> This patch just makes sure that such a regression doesn't happen when
> kbuild stops exporting files in _non_-uapi directories.
Yes, it was the only goal. My patch changes nothing!
Is it possible to find a consensus about this patch?
Ingo ?
