Re: [PATCH 28/34] x86: wire up mprotect_key() system call

From	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: [PATCH 28/34] x86: wire up mprotect_key() system call
Date	2015-12-08 19:50 +0100
Message-ID	<qDvuO-5Xs-7@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	<qBNct-4nR-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <qBNct-4nR-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

On Thu, 3 Dec 2015, Dave Hansen wrote:
>  #include <asm-generic/mman.h>
> diff -puN mm/Kconfig~pkeys-16-x86-mprotect_key mm/Kconfig
> --- a/mm/Kconfig~pkeys-16-x86-mprotect_key	2015-12-03 16:21:31.114920208 -0800
> +++ b/mm/Kconfig	2015-12-03 16:21:31.119920435 -0800
> @@ -679,4 +679,5 @@ config NR_PROTECTION_KEYS
>  	# Everything supports a _single_ key, so allow folks to
>  	# at least call APIs that take keys, but require that the
>  	# key be 0.
> +	default 16 if X86_INTEL_MEMORY_PROTECTION_KEYS
>  	default 1

What happens if I set that to 42?

I think we want to make this a runtime evaluated thingy. If pkeys are
compiled in, but the machine does not support it then we don't support
16 keys, or do we?

Thanks,

	tglx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Thread

[PATCH 28/34] x86: wire up mprotect_key() system call Dave Hansen <dave@sr71.net> - 2015-12-04 02:20 +0100
  Re: [PATCH 28/34] x86: wire up mprotect_key() system call Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2015-12-08 19:50 +0100
    Re: [PATCH 28/34] x86: wire up mprotect_key() system call Dave Hansen <dave@sr71.net> - 2015-12-08 20:10 +0100
      Re: [PATCH 28/34] x86: wire up mprotect_key() system call Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2015-12-08 21:40 +0100

csiph-web