On Thu, Aug 14, 2025 at 02:08:57PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > On Thu, Aug 14, 2025 at 02:59:13PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote: > > On 14.08.25 14:09, Mark Brown wrote: > > > > Perhaps this is something that needs considering in the ABI, so > > > userspace can reasonably figure out if it failed to configure whatever > > > is being configured due to a missing feature (in which case it should > > > fall back to not using that feature somehow) or due to it messing > > > something else up? We might be happy with the tests being version > > > specific but general userspace should be able to be a bit more robust. > > > Yeah, the whole prctl() ship has sailed, unfortunately :( > > Perhaps a second call or sysfs file or something that returns the > supported mask? You'd still have a boostrapping issue with existing > versions but at least at any newer stuff would be helped. Ack yeah I do wish we had better APIs for expressing what was available/not. Will put this sort of thing on the TODO... Overall I don't want to hold this up unnecesarily, and I bow to the consensus if others feel we ought not to _assume_ same kernel at least best effort. Usama - It's ok to leave it as is in this case since obviously only tip kernel will have this feature. Cheers, Lorenzo
