[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f7897068-18a3-d88b-0458-5dcf05d7ffc2@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 12:23:02 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
linuxram@...ibm.com, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
mpe@...erman.id.au, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, shuah@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/9] x86, pkeys: override pkey when moving away from
PROT_EXEC
On 03/23/2018 12:15 PM, Shakeel Butt wrote:
>> We had a check for PROT_READ/WRITE, but it did not work
>> for PROT_NONE. This entirely removes the PROT_* checks,
>> which ensures that PROT_NONE now works.
>>
>> Reported-by: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
> Should there be a 'Fixes' tag? Also should this patch go to stable?
There could be, but I'm to lazy to dig up the original commit. Does it
matter?
And, yes, I think it probably makes sense for -stable. I'll add that if
I resend this series.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists