[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20160307.163401.1082539079648850099.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2016 16:34:01 -0500 (EST)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: khalid.aziz@...cle.com
Cc: corbet@....net, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
dingel@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, bob.picco@...cle.com,
kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com, aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
aarcange@...hat.com, arnd@...db.de, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org,
rob.gardner@...cle.com, mhocko@...e.cz, chris.hyser@...cle.com,
richard@....at, vbabka@...e.cz, koct9i@...il.com, oleg@...hat.com,
gthelen@...gle.com, jack@...e.cz, xiexiuqi@...wei.com,
Vineet.Gupta1@...opsys.com, luto@...nel.org, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
bsegall@...gle.com, geert@...ux-m68k.org, dave@...olabs.net,
adobriyan@...il.com, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] sparc64: Add support for Application Data Integrity
(ADI)
From: Khalid Aziz <khalid.aziz@...cle.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2016 14:27:09 -0700
> I agree with your point of view. PSTATE.mcde and TTE.mcd are set in
> response to request from userspace. If userspace asked for them to be
> set, they already know but it was the database guys that asked for
> these two functions and they are the primary customers for the ADI
> feature. I am not crazy about this idea since this extends the
> mprotect API even further but would you consider using the return
> value from mprotect to indicate if PSTATE.mcde or TTE.mcd were already
> set on the given address?
Well, that's the idea.
If the mprotect using MAP_ADI or whatever succeeds, then ADI is
enabled.
Users can thus also pass MAP_ADI as a flag to mmap() to get ADI
protection from the very beginning.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists