[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <842bd8a3-d869-f796-32ea-831427fefe4d@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 22:50:33 -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: [PATCH] x86, powerpc : pkey-mprotect must allow pkey-0
On 03/09/2018 09:55 PM, Ram Pai wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 02:40:32PM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
>> 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?
> ok. that will make it allocatable. But it will not be associatable,
> given the bug in the current code. And what will be the
> default key associated with a pte? zero? or something else?
I'm just saying that I think we should try to keep from making it
special as much as possible.
Let's fix the bug that keeps it from being associatable.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists