[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1455516578.16012.27.camel@gmail.com>
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