[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9ef40243-3dc2-9bba-16b6-a94cffb57a24@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 12:29:59 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
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 12:27 PM, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 12:23 PM, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com> wrote:
>> 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?
>>
> I think for stable 'Fixes' is usually preferable.
This one is a no-brainer. If pkeys.c is there, it's necesary.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists