[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20180309200017.GR1060@ram.oc3035372033.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 12:00:17 -0800
From: Ram Pai <linuxram@...ibm.com>
To: Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.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,
dave.hansen@...el.com, 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, msuchanek@...e.com, Ulrich.Weigand@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86, powerpc : pkey-mprotect must allow pkey-0
On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 12:04:49PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 03/09/2018 09:12 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.
>
> mprotect without a key does not necessarily use key 0, e.g. if
> protection keys are used to emulate page protection flag combination
> which is not directly supported by the hardware.
>
> Therefore, it seems to me that filtering out non-allocated keys is
> the right thing to do.
I am not sure, what you mean. Do you agree with the patch or otherwise?
RP
Powered by blists - more mailing lists