[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1803232036140.1481@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 20:38:09 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
cc: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>, linuxram@...ibm.com,
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 Fri, 23 Mar 2018, Dave Hansen 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?
>
> And, yes, I think it probably makes sense for -stable. I'll add that if
> I resend this series.
The fixes tag makes sense in general even if the patch is not tagged for
stable. It gives you immediate context and I use it a lot to look why this
went unnoticed or what the context of that change was.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists