Conversation

FFS Linux *please* stop hiding features behind CONFIG_CHECKPOINT_RESTORE just because checkpoint/restore migration is *one* possible usage case for them!!!
Quote Tweet
Uhg it's not CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_SOFT_DIRTY but CONFIG_MEM_SOFT_DIRTY, and the latter is hidden behind CONFIG_CHECKPOINT_RESTORE like lots of other useful stuff for no legitimate reason.
Show this thread
1
Replying to and
FWIW, I'm not sure exactly what "SROP mitigation" would look like but I suspect it would break other valid things like sigreturn-based ucontext API implementation (IIRC this is used by glibc on one or more archs, and is a good choice of implementation).
1
I didn't notice that they removed the dependency of CHECKPOINT_RESTORE on EXPERT. It was kept behind that for a long time since the way they do a lot of things is just a bad idea. They're apparently also trying to remove the CHECKPOINT_RESTORE configuration option as a whole.
1
Show replies