Re: [PATCH 4/8] arm64: Basic Branch Target Identification support

[Catalin Marinas]

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:
> > On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 11:25:29AM +0100, Dave Martin wrote:
> > >  #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