From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com (Jarkko Sakkinen) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2018 13:12:31 +0300 Subject: [RFC 02/12] mm: Generalize the mprotect implementation to support extensions In-Reply-To: <2dcbb08ed8804e02538a73ee05a4283c54180e36.1536356108.git.alison.schofield@intel.com> References: <2dcbb08ed8804e02538a73ee05a4283c54180e36.1536356108.git.alison.schofield@intel.com> Message-ID: <0663b867003511f1ca652cef6acce589a5184a4b.camel@linux.intel.com> To: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-security-module.vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2018-09-07 at 15:34 -0700, Alison Schofield wrote: > Today mprotect is implemented to support legacy mprotect behavior > plus an extension for memory protection keys. Make it more generic > so that it can support additional extensions in the future. > > This is done is preparation for adding a new system call for memory > encyption keys. The intent is that the new encrypted mprotect will be > another extension to legacy mprotect. > > Signed-off-by: Alison Schofield > --- > mm/mprotect.c | 10 ++++++---- > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/mm/mprotect.c b/mm/mprotect.c > index 68dc476310c0..56e64ef7931e 100644 > --- a/mm/mprotect.c > +++ b/mm/mprotect.c > @@ -35,6 +35,8 @@ > > #include "internal.h" > > +#define NO_PKEY -1 This commit does not make anything more generic but it does take away a magic number. The code change is senseful. The commit message is nonsense. PS. Please use @linux.intel.com for LKML. /Jarkko