[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1bfaa8c0-cd9c-b590-9930-e9584dfb928d@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 11:30:29 -0800
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Ram Pai <linuxram@...ibm.com>
Cc: mpe@...erman.id.au, mingo@...hat.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, x86@...nel.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
benh@...nel.crashing.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, corbet@....net,
arnd@...db.de, fweimer@...hat.com, msuchanek@...e.com,
Ulrich.Weigand@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: mm, x86, powerpc: pkey semantics for key-0 ?
On 03/08/2018 10:25 AM, Ram Pai wrote:
> Is there a reason why the default key; key-0, is not allowed to be
> explicitly associated with pages using pkey_mprotect()?
No, it's a bug if it is not permitted. I have a vague recollection of
knowing about this and having a patch.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists