From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1947869AbcBRUSo (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Feb 2016 15:18:44 -0500 Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([198.137.202.10]:46761 "EHLO terminus.zytor.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1947550AbcBRUR7 (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Feb 2016 15:17:59 -0500 Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2016 12:16:47 -0800 From: tip-bot for Dave Hansen Message-ID: Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, brgerst@gmail.com, bp@alien8.de, tglx@linutronix.de, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, hpa@zytor.com, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, peterz@infradead.org, mingo@kernel.org, luto@amacapital.net, dvlasenk@redhat.com, dave@sr71.net, riel@redhat.com Reply-To: bp@alien8.de, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, tglx@linutronix.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, brgerst@gmail.com, dave@sr71.net, riel@redhat.com, mingo@kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, peterz@infradead.org, hpa@zytor.com, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, dvlasenk@redhat.com, luto@amacapital.net In-Reply-To: <20160212210200.DB7055E8@viggo.jf.intel.com> References: <20160212210200.DB7055E8@viggo.jf.intel.com> To: linux-tip-commits@vger.kernel.org Subject: [tip:mm/pkeys] x86/mm/pkeys: Add Kconfig option Git-Commit-ID: 35e97790f5f1e5cf2b5522c55e3e31d5c81bd226 X-Mailer: tip-git-log-daemon Robot-ID: Robot-Unsubscribe: Contact to get blacklisted from these emails MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Commit-ID: 35e97790f5f1e5cf2b5522c55e3e31d5c81bd226 Gitweb: http://git.kernel.org/tip/35e97790f5f1e5cf2b5522c55e3e31d5c81bd226 Author: Dave Hansen AuthorDate: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 13:02:00 -0800 Committer: Ingo Molnar CommitDate: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 10:11:13 +0100 x86/mm/pkeys: Add Kconfig option I don't have a strong opinion on whether we need a Kconfig prompt or not. Protection Keys has relatively little code associated with it, and it is not a heavyweight feature to keep enabled. However, I can imagine that folks would still appreciate being able to disable it. Note that, with disabled-features.h, the checks in the code for protection keys are always the same: cpu_has(c, X86_FEATURE_PKU) With the config option disabled, this essentially turns into an We will hide the prompt for now. Signed-off-by: Dave Hansen Reviewed-by: Thomas Gleixner Cc: Andrew Morton Cc: Andy Lutomirski Cc: Borislav Petkov Cc: Brian Gerst Cc: Dave Hansen Cc: Denys Vlasenko Cc: H. Peter Anvin Cc: Linus Torvalds Cc: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Rik van Riel Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20160212210200.DB7055E8@viggo.jf.intel.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar --- arch/x86/Kconfig | 4 ++++ 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) diff --git a/arch/x86/Kconfig b/arch/x86/Kconfig index ab2ed53..3632cdd 100644 --- a/arch/x86/Kconfig +++ b/arch/x86/Kconfig @@ -1714,6 +1714,10 @@ config X86_INTEL_MPX If unsure, say N. +config X86_INTEL_MEMORY_PROTECTION_KEYS + def_bool y + depends on CPU_SUP_INTEL && X86_64 + config EFI bool "EFI runtime service support" depends on ACPI