On 11/22/2017 04:15 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: > On 11/22/2017 09:18 AM, Vlastimil Babka wrote: >> And, was the pkey == -1 internal wiring supposed to be exposed to the >> pkey_mprotect() signal, or should there have been a pre-check returning >> EINVAL in SYSCALL_DEFINE4(pkey_mprotect), before calling >> do_mprotect_pkey())? I assume it's too late to change it now anyway (or >> not?), so should we also document it? > > I think the -1 case to the set the default key is useful because it > allows you to use a key value of -1 to mean “MPK is not supported”, and > still call pkey_mprotect. The behavior to not allow 0 to be set was unintentional and is a bug. We should fix that.
