On 06/01/2016 05:11 PM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote: >>> >> >>> >> If I read this right, it doesn't actually remove any pkey restrictions >>> >> that may have been applied while the key was allocated. So there could be >>> >> pages with that key assigned that might do surprising things if the key is >>> >> reallocated for another use later, right? Is that how the API is intended >>> >> to work? >> > >> > Yeah, that's how it works. >> > >> > It's not ideal. It would be _best_ if we during mm_pkey_free(), we >> > ensured that no VMAs under that mm have that vma_pkey() set. But, that >> > search would be potentially expensive (a walk over all VMAs), or would >> > force us to keep a data structure with a count of all the VMAs with a >> > given key. >> > >> > I should probably discuss this behavior in the manpages and address it > s/probably// > > And, did I miss it. Was there an updated man-pages patch in the latest > series? I did not notice it. There have been to changes to the patches that warranted updating the manpages until now. I'll send the update immediately. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>