[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1513810153.2743.25.camel@kernel.crashing.org>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 09:49:13 +1100
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To: Ram Pai <linuxram@...ibm.com>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>, mpe@...erman.id.au,
mingo@...hat.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, corbet@....net,
arnd@...db.de, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
x86@...nel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, paulus@...ba.org,
khandual@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
bsingharora@...il.com, hbabu@...ibm.com, mhocko@...nel.org,
bauerman@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, ebiederm@...ssion.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 29/51] mm/mprotect, powerpc/mm/pkeys, x86/mm/pkeys:
Add sysfs interface
On Wed, 2017-12-20 at 09:50 -0800, Ram Pai wrote:
> The argument against this patch is -- it should not be baked into
> the ABI as yet, since we do not have clarity on what applications need.
>
> As it stands today the only way to figure out the information from
> userspace is by probing the kernel through calls to sys_pkey_alloc().
>
> AT_HWCAP can be used, but that will certainly not be capable of
> providing all the information that userspace might expect.
>
> Your thoughts?
Well, there's one well known application wanting that whole keys
business, so why not ask them what works for them ?
In the meantime, that shouldn't block the rest of the patches.
Cheers,
Ben.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists