From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Yu-cheng Yu Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 27/27] x86/cet: Add arch_prctl functions for CET Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 14:02:36 -0700 Message-ID: <1531342956.15351.38.camel@intel.com> References: <20180710222639.8241-1-yu-cheng.yu@intel.com> <20180710222639.8241-28-yu-cheng.yu@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Florian Weimer , x86@kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, Arnd Bergmann , Andy Lutomirski , Balbir Singh , Cyrill Gorcunov , Dave Hansen , "H.J. Lu" , Jann Horn , Jonathan Corbet , Kees Cook , Mike Kravetz , Nadav Amit , Oleg Nesterov , Pavel Machek Peter List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2018-07-11 at 14:19 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > On 07/11/2018 12:26 AM, Yu-cheng Yu wrote: > > > > arch_prctl(ARCH_CET_DISABLE, unsigned long features) > >      Disable SHSTK and/or IBT specified in 'features'.  Return > > -EPERM > >      if CET is locked out. > > > > arch_prctl(ARCH_CET_LOCK) > >      Lock out CET feature. > Isn't it a “lock in” rather than a “lock out”? Yes, that makes more sense.  I will fix it.