[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3f7c9ee7-46db-723f-177d-7505d0ac1e41@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 11:58:29 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Ram Pai <linuxram@...ibm.com>
Cc: mingo@...hat.com, mpe@...erman.id.au,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, x86@...nel.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.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
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1 v2] x86: pkey-mprotect must allow pkey-0
On 03/14/2018 11:54 AM, Ram Pai wrote:
>>> (e) it bypasses key-permission checks when assigned.
>> I don't think this is necessary. I think the only rule we *need* is:
>>
>> pkey-0 is allocated implicitly at execve() time. You do not
>> need to call pkey_alloc() to allocate it.
> And can be explicitly associated with any address range ?
Yes, it should ideally be available for use just like any other key when
allocated.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists