From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-108-mta91.mxroute.com (mail-108-mta91.mxroute.com [136.175.108.91]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3135647A0C7 for ; Fri, 5 Jun 2026 15:16:16 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=136.175.108.91 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1780672578; cv=none; b=pDeR81EERtBHUGjajEk4k9BMVqW9UZq8OR62bpV2Q8dB3KAZdZ77mtZesq3ZGwwc9mQ0H6H8om0noi79OveOvzQAzTs3dYrv2EnqSHNdAsCbEFOctGDpDOpwInCRVmZMh8mvRO4YWZRoM+6VPkuqCjQuUMoQopdhsbVZFc1mOgE= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1780672578; c=relaxed/simple; bh=f55aN1txy1W3ZNJZzI0g6mF55n+29ND8pnH+Eot/5dQ=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=uV7Nqa+i2fYfOjwiPfUAxekDYoGT54osRcGWzjUo8OxsKkjwlMYedgg/4v3rlWN9wrdiQ+MbZ57RqOxnar/0sqPQ4Xiy1aC1/bW7xjwVYsVHk1xvFXoM97Zy9NCeTAw2EKdRX5AQIkNknVjpZv74BWHmCKuIs+V/82ld6LvFJkk= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=wii.dev; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=wii.dev; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=wii.dev header.i=@wii.dev header.b=ciSppfqQ; arc=none smtp.client-ip=136.175.108.91 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=wii.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=wii.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=wii.dev header.i=@wii.dev header.b="ciSppfqQ" Received: from filter006.mxroute.com ([136.175.111.3] filter006.mxroute.com) (Authenticated sender: mN4UYu2MZsgR) by mail-108-mta91.mxroute.com (ZoneMTA) with ESMTPSA id 19e98566deb00067f7.00b for (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384); Fri, 05 Jun 2026 15:11:01 +0000 X-Zone-Loop: e1202497312ab82b134527c0f4ec3a4b38731169f442 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=wii.dev; s=x; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc :To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=vOOeEl9PEnfuR5KUMGDXPq7D3smUMqacba4j+2QN9u4=; b=ciSppfqQKYMgINTv3KkuFpXWXK Q75JJoFcYT0+oFafv4Hr/iZTRqPVEyveegSwbqiTko+ZHCM83EjKhKLQNcY4x7wNzMfb9VQ4y7Nus i8FsXQc57x5Jos3fLAYTOnlH46QzCctxvQI9YcZXb6ZQLK9bPrKboy3CvbvUYVGvYguqN++Ypf4Ys i31IDCnWalauBxhL6YYXpSywWzomMQUhrV5WVuY0aL4oZYr4G3BddonECEfSDNBDJ8wizA5AJN+Zw 6SSOL3R8P/4bkzS+DSMxh0WZJxtQklzVhZ1N0oji3QBzBIRXSLRY/iFDFLIx/+ZQlejYG3HeKoT+t ywd/g4jQ==; Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2026 15:10:31 +0000 From: Richard Patel To: Paul Walmsley Cc: Palmer Dabbelt , Albert Ou , Alexandre Ghiti , Deepak Gupta , Zong Li , Charlie Jenkins , Shuah Khan , linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] riscv: cfi: reject unknown flags in PR_SET_CFI Message-ID: References: <20260518183918.322545-1-ripatel@wii.dev> <3f2d4628-a95d-89c3-2fd7-3e1a407d698a@kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3f2d4628-a95d-89c3-2fd7-3e1a407d698a@kernel.org> X-Authenticated-Id: ripatel@wii.dev On Thu, Jun 04, 2026 at 04:40:31PM -0600, Paul Walmsley wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, 18 May 2026, Richard Patel wrote: > > > prctl(PR_SET_CFI,PR_CFI_BRANCH_LANDING_PADS) silently ignored > > unknown control values. Only PR_CFI_{ENABLE,DISABLE,LOCK} should > > be permitted. > < > > This is a uABI breaking change (fails previously accepted bits > > with EINVAL). > > Thanks for the patch. However, I'm not convinced that this actually > breaks anything. The behavior of the interface changes when unknown flags > are specified, but I'm not aware of anything that relies on this specific > behavior. > > Does that match your understanding? I agree, yes, happy to rephrase the commit message.