lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2016 17:09:38 +1100 From: Balbir Singh <bsingharora@...il.com> To: Dave Hansen <dave@...1.net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, x86@...nel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, vbabka@...e.cz, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com, aarcange@...hat.com, n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com, jack@...e.cz Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/33] mm: introduce get_user_pages_remote() On Fri, 2016-02-12 at 13:01 -0800, Dave Hansen wrote: > From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com> > > For protection keys, we need to understand whether protections > should be enforced in software or not. In general, we enforce > protections when working on our own task, but not when on others. > We call these "current" and "remote" operations. > > This patch introduces a new get_user_pages() variant: > > get_user_pages_remote() > > Which is a replacement for when get_user_pages() is called on > non-current tsk/mm. > In summary then get_user_pages_remote() do not enforce protections? Balbir Singh.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists