[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <96b08909-906b-86b6-f4ee-67b9f8eff5d7@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2018 08:46:04 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Ram Pai <linuxram@...ibm.com>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
Cc: 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 12:06 PM, Ram Pai wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 09:19:53PM +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>> Ram Pai <linuxram@...ibm.com> writes:
>>
>>> 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.
>> Please explain this in much more detail. Is it an ABI change?
> Not necessarily an ABI change. older binary applications will continue
> to work. It can be considered as a bug-fix.
Yeah, agreed. I do not think this is an ABI change.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists