On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 9:46 AM, Dave Hansen <dave@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 06/30/2016 02:41 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote: >> * Dave Hansen <dave@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Are there any concerns with merging these into the x86 tree so >>> that they go upstream for 4.8? The updates here are pretty >>> minor. >> >>> include/linux/pkeys.h | 39 +- >>> include/uapi/asm-generic/mman-common.h | 5 + >>> include/uapi/asm-generic/unistd.h | 12 +- >>> mm/mprotect.c | 134 +- >> >> So I'd love to have some high level MM review & ack for these syscall ABI >> extensions. > > That's a quite reasonable request, but I'm really surprised by it at > this point. The proposed ABI is one very straightforward extension to > one existing system call, plus four others that you personally suggested. > I apologize for the very late review, but (see other thread) I think we may need to make sure we've defined the signal delivery semantics in a useful way before enabling these. I'm not convinced that the current behavior is helpful. This may or may not require any change to the syscall signatures, but I can imagine that doing it right would involve adding another syscall to *read* the current signal-delivery state of a pkey or perhaps of all the pkeys. That could potentially be achieved by adding an extra pointer parameter to pkey_get so pkey_get can return both the current state and the state at next signal delivery. --Andy -- 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>