From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C52B13A1CD for ; Sat, 14 Feb 2026 00:23:45 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1771028625; cv=none; b=OSEgdCr6wzfvXGdpHEOxuyvAOaOn1jfomivIRvcVUWOgactUsh9XJ0wEjA66UELKyk0Pq9hlpXVej68OXKKpg7283HG8ZBhU3xu7x5luIPnUAXXxZqeZ2NzYjBcxtxnK5oHDu6liEg0AXCJo52jh18f4jg/53+6k6bA2W4/qvVQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1771028625; c=relaxed/simple; bh=0Uxm6w5KJWRLnm+fT3A+MmNRIjXeTQ9g/qdsDSMeoTY=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=oYYw1ZnFHH0K87H0pVZnsjMOhezE17RrQaJ8d6BuFQcXq14TaFn6iqy9AKZCiqOiNtWj7DgQVl9MXXKakAQDTAvGPRtojPcFWI6lARwCtdBfJBlU97oTnOpyv2BGNZhxxIgE+kp4Y/qulyDZS2IakzJxEaD8LFMvP2VF8Grn56U= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=CXVL7C0K; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="CXVL7C0K" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C33B4C116C6; Sat, 14 Feb 2026 00:23:44 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1771028625; bh=0Uxm6w5KJWRLnm+fT3A+MmNRIjXeTQ9g/qdsDSMeoTY=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=CXVL7C0KF162uiO1bN0qqeIsBTfTxkb8N8Lr/YLk5G0nm5Y8kQbpY9VLYzfOgvgQj ieyz/yFO/gMZBPI7LJxinaM+QdfP0yTFcMjLPUWlQnuX7kvtH32KH9pRPbHoRL5KQ+ Br/tdTHBDt+9EVxSBqNXUF0zMCpvhhcG9qDxJomoi1QaW/j/k+B5bQwp+emKjJGWxK QWZyfN1MJSkRr4eVIKKQj94eUoZUAq9D4kEC8HiCvA7tnPuKrJVZVVjwqkIHvKWG+Q xbVouvQgu2FJAYNn7QepriX5sePOhqME6fgVCS2NolltWK/ZdLCU/pJ+dzvNRgqklO soyocSRblusqA== Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2026 17:23:41 -0700 (MST) From: Paul Walmsley To: Linus Torvalds cc: Paul Walmsley , Thomas Gleixner , Peter Zijlstra , linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, broonie@kernel.org, debug@rivosinc.com, zong.li@sifive.com Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] RISC-V updates for v7.0 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <2248971d-d69c-65fb-93b4-10f0d7d8bbad@kernel.org> References: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 12 Feb 2026, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Thu, 12 Feb 2026 at 15:39, Paul Walmsley wrote: > > > > Deepak Gupta (26): > > prctl: add arch-agnostic prctl()s for indirect branch tracking > > Hmm. In the meantime, I had pulled the RSEQ time slice extensions > stuff first, so what happened was that these prctl numbers got bumped > up from 79-81 to 80-82. > > I note that it looks like linux-next ended up merging things in a > different order, and so instead left the indirect branch status prctls > alone, and instead modified the RSEQ one. > > Just letting everybody involved know - maybe this was obvious to > people, and maybe this came as a surprise. Thanks for the heads-up; shouldn't be a problem. > And only very tangentially related: I think the indirect branch > locking could have been just a separate bit from the enable bit. I > don't see why it needed separate prctls for "set status" and "set > lock". Will think this through and respond back. > On a similar theme: why is it called "indir_br_lp"? That's a horrible name. > > This was supposed to be architecture-neutral, but I get the feeling > that "lp" does not stand for "Long Play" and has nothing to do with > 12-inch vinyl records. > > I think it probably is shorthand for "lpad", which is RISC-V thing. > Which is complete nonsense for something that is documented to be > architecture-neutral. RISC-V didn't invent that term; here are some earlier CFI-related uses: * ARM (2019): https://developer.arm.com/-/media/Arm%20Developer%20Community/PDF/Learn%20the%20Architecture/Providing%20protection%20for%20complex%20software.pdf * LWN (2022): https://lwn.net/Articles/900099/ * FineIBT (2023): https://cs.brown.edu/~vpk/papers/fineibt.raid23.pdf If you're okay with keeping the term "landing pad," we could get rid of the "LP" and use something like "branch_landing_pad" instead. Or perhaps "verified_branch_target" could be another option. It would be nice to avoid using IBT or BTI, since those are definitely associated with specific architectures. Any preference? > In other words: I've pulled this, but I expect this to be fixed asap. Will do, once we stop bikeshedding on the name :-) thanks - Paul