[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <60886e4a-59d4-541a-a6af-d4504e6719ad@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 14:40:32 -0800
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Ram Pai <linuxram@...ibm.com>, mpe@...erman.id.au,
mingo@...hat.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Cc: 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: [PATCH] x86, powerpc : pkey-mprotect must allow pkey-0
On 03/09/2018 12:12 AM, Ram Pai wrote:
> Once an address range is associated with an allocated pkey, it cannot be
> reverted back to key-0. There is no valid reason for the above behavior. On
> the contrary applications need the ability to do so.
Why don't we just set pkey 0 to be allocated in the allocation bitmap by
default?
We *could* also just not let it be special and let it be freed. An app
could theoretically be careful and make sure nothing is using it.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists