[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1512081943270.3595@nanos>
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2015 19:44:59 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Dave Hansen <dave@...1.net>
cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, x86@...nel.org,
dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, linux-api@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 28/34] x86: wire up mprotect_key() system call
On Thu, 3 Dec 2015, Dave Hansen wrote:
> #include <asm-generic/mman.h>
> diff -puN mm/Kconfig~pkeys-16-x86-mprotect_key mm/Kconfig
> --- a/mm/Kconfig~pkeys-16-x86-mprotect_key 2015-12-03 16:21:31.114920208 -0800
> +++ b/mm/Kconfig 2015-12-03 16:21:31.119920435 -0800
> @@ -679,4 +679,5 @@ config NR_PROTECTION_KEYS
> # Everything supports a _single_ key, so allow folks to
> # at least call APIs that take keys, but require that the
> # key be 0.
> + default 16 if X86_INTEL_MEMORY_PROTECTION_KEYS
> default 1
What happens if I set that to 42?
I think we want to make this a runtime evaluated thingy. If pkeys are
compiled in, but the machine does not support it then we don't support
16 keys, or do we?
Thanks,
tglx
--
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