[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8ec7f329-a0a3-7631-ba05-225944b19771@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2023 13:30:31 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Thomas Huth <thuth@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Nicolas Schier <nicolas@...sle.eu>,
Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Remove the arch_calc_vm_prot_bits() macro from the
uapi
On 7/6/23 13:22, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 6, 2023, at 21:02, Thomas Huth wrote:
>> The arch_calc_vm_prot_bits() macro uses VM_PKEY_BIT0 etc. which are
>> not part of the uapi, so the macro is completely useless for userspace.
>> It is also hidden behind the CONFIG_X86_INTEL_MEMORY_PROTECTION_KEYS
>> config switch which we shouldn't expose to userspace. Thus let's move
>> this macro into a new internal header instead.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@...hat.com>
> Fixes: 8f62c883222c9 ("x86/mm/pkeys: Add arch-specific VMA protection bits")
> Reviewed-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
>
> It looks like this was introduced right after the uapi split,
> and probably is the result of an incorrect rebase.
Yeah, I bet I just glossed over the "uapi" in the path.
Is this causing any real problems? Or is it OK to just send it along
during the next merge window with other random cleanups?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists