From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
To: Ram Pai <linuxram@us.ibm.com>, mpe@ellerman.id.au
Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, benh@kernel.crashing.org,
paulus@samba.org, aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
bsingharora@gmail.com, hbabu@us.ibm.com, mhocko@kernel.org,
bauerman@linux.vnet.ibm.com, fweimer@redhat.com,
msuchanek@suse.com, Ulrich.Weigand@de.ibm.com,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] powerpc, pkey: make protection key 0 less special
Date: Fri, 4 May 2018 12:59:27 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <373dffe1-4752-5eb0-f97c-a06fe0e0fdb5@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1525461778-26265-1-git-send-email-linuxram@us.ibm.com>
On 05/04/2018 12:22 PM, Ram Pai wrote:
> @@ -407,9 +414,6 @@ static bool pkey_access_permitted(int pkey, bool write, bool execute)
> int pkey_shift;
> u64 amr;
>
> - if (!pkey)
> - return true;
> -
> if (!is_pkey_enabled(pkey))
> return true;
Looks fine to me. Obviously doesn't have any impact on x86 or the
generic code.
One question, though. Which other check makes up for this removed !pkey
check?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-05-04 19:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-05-04 19:22 [PATCH v3] powerpc, pkey: make protection key 0 less special Ram Pai
2018-05-04 19:59 ` Dave Hansen [this message]
2018-05-04 20:21 ` Ram Pai
2018-05-04 21:26 ` Michal Suchánek
2018-05-04 21:31 ` Dave Hansen
2018-05-04 21:45 ` Ram Pai
2018-05-05 12:39 ` Michal Suchánek
2018-05-06 20:10 ` Ram Pai
2018-05-07 11:21 ` Michal Suchánek
2018-05-08 16:38 ` Ram Pai
2018-05-08 17:03 ` Michal Suchánek
2018-05-08 18:38 ` Ram Pai
2018-05-09 15:43 ` Michal Suchánek
2018-05-09 15:46 ` Dave Hansen
2018-05-09 15:56 ` Michal Suchánek
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=373dffe1-4752-5eb0-f97c-a06fe0e0fdb5@intel.com \
--to=dave.hansen@intel.com \
--cc=Ulrich.Weigand@de.ibm.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=bauerman@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=bsingharora@gmail.com \
--cc=fweimer@redhat.com \
--cc=hbabu@us.ibm.com \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=linuxram@us.ibm.com \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
--cc=msuchanek@suse.com \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).