Re: [PATCH 0/9] [v3] System Calls for Memory Protection Keys
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
Date: 2016-06-30 17:40:40
Also in:
linux-api, linux-mm, lkml
On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 9:46 AM, Dave Hansen [off-list ref] wrote:
On 06/30/2016 02:41 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:quoted
* Dave Hansen [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
Are there any concerns with merging these into the x86 tree so that they go upstream for 4.8? The updates here are pretty minor.quoted
include/linux/pkeys.h | 39 +- include/uapi/asm-generic/mman-common.h | 5 + include/uapi/asm-generic/unistd.h | 12 +- mm/mprotect.c | 134 +-So I'd love to have some high level MM review & ack for these syscall ABI extensions.That's a quite reasonable request, but I'm really surprised by it at this point. The proposed ABI is one very straightforward extension to one existing system call, plus four others that you personally suggested.
I apologize for the very late review, but (see other thread) I think we may need to make sure we've defined the signal delivery semantics in a useful way before enabling these. I'm not convinced that the current behavior is helpful. This may or may not require any change to the syscall signatures, but I can imagine that doing it right would involve adding another syscall to *read* the current signal-delivery state of a pkey or perhaps of all the pkeys. That could potentially be achieved by adding an extra pointer parameter to pkey_get so pkey_get can return both the current state and the state at next signal delivery. --Andy -- 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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>