# Re: \[PATCH v2\] sparc64: Add support for Application Data Integrity (ADI) - From: Khalid Aziz \ - Date: 2016-03-07 22:31:34 - List: linux-api - Page: https://ratatoskr.run/linux-api/2016/03/4703326 - Thread: https://ratatoskr.run/sparclinux/2016/03/4699675/t.md ```text On 03/07/2016 02:34 PM, David Miller wrote: > From: Khalid Aziz > Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2016 14:27:09 -0700 > >> I agree with your point of view. PSTATE.mcde and TTE.mcd are set in >> response to request from userspace. If userspace asked for them to be >> set, they already know but it was the database guys that asked for >> these two functions and they are the primary customers for the ADI >> feature. I am not crazy about this idea since this extends the >> mprotect API even further but would you consider using the return >> value from mprotect to indicate if PSTATE.mcde or TTE.mcd were already >> set on the given address? > > Well, that's the idea. > > If the mprotect using MAP_ADI or whatever succeeds, then ADI is > enabled. > > Users can thus also pass MAP_ADI as a flag to mmap() to get ADI > protection from the very beginning. > MAP_ADI has been sitting in my backlog for some time. Looks like you just raised its priority ;) -- Khalid -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org ```