On 03/14/2018 11:54 AM, Ram Pai wrote:
>>> (e) it bypasses key-permission checks when assigned.
>> I don't think this is necessary. I think the only rule we *need* is:
>>
>> pkey-0 is allocated implicitly at execve() time. You do not
>> need to call pkey_alloc() to allocate it.
> And ca
On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 10:51:26AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 03/14/2018 10:14 AM, Ram Pai wrote:
> > I look at key-0 as 'the key'. It has special status.
> > (a) It always exist.
>
> Do you mean "is always allocated"?
always allocated and cannot be freed. Hence always exists.
If we let it
On 03/14/2018 10:14 AM, Ram Pai wrote:
> I look at key-0 as 'the key'. It has special status.
> (a) It always exist.
Do you mean "is always allocated"?
> (b) it cannot be freed.
This is the one I'm questioning.
> (c) it is assigned by default.
I agree on this totally. :)
> (d) its permission
On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 07:19:23AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 03/14/2018 12:46 AM, Ram Pai wrote:
> > Once an address range is associated with an allocated pkey, it cannot be
> > reverted back to key-0. There is no valid reason for the above behavior. On
> > the contrary applications need the
On 03/14/2018 12:46 AM, Ram Pai wrote:
> Once an address range is associated with an allocated pkey, it cannot be
> reverted back to key-0. There is no valid reason for the above behavior. On
> the contrary applications need the ability to do so.
I'm trying to remember why we cared in the first p
5 matches
Mail list logo
