[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20151117033520.E03E82F3@viggo.jf.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 19:35:20 -0800
From: Dave Hansen <dave@...1.net>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: x86@...nel.org, Dave Hansen <dave@...1.net>,
dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com
Subject: [PATCH 07/37] x86, pkeys: Add Kconfig option
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
I don't have a strong opinion on whether we need a Kconfig prompt
or not. Protection Keys has relatively little code associated
with it, and it is not a heavyweight feature to keep enabled.
However, I can imagine that folks would still appreciate being
able to disable it.
Note that, with disabled-features.h, the checks in the code
for protection keys are always the same:
cpu_has(c, X86_FEATURE_PKU)
With the config option disabled, this essentially turns into an
#ifdef.
We will hide the prompt for now.
Signed-off-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
---
b/arch/x86/Kconfig | 4 ++++
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
diff -puN arch/x86/Kconfig~pkeys-01-kconfig arch/x86/Kconfig
--- a/arch/x86/Kconfig~pkeys-01-kconfig 2015-11-16 12:35:38.310306736 -0800
+++ b/arch/x86/Kconfig 2015-11-16 12:35:38.314306917 -0800
@@ -1680,6 +1680,10 @@ config X86_INTEL_MPX
If unsure, say N.
+config X86_INTEL_MEMORY_PROTECTION_KEYS
+ def_bool y
+ depends on CPU_SUP_INTEL && X86_64
+
config EFI
bool "EFI runtime service support"
depends on ACPI
_
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists