* Ram Pai: > Florian, > > I can. But I am struggling to understand the requirement. Why is > this needed? Are we proposing a enhancement to the sys_pkey_alloc(), > to be able to allocate keys that are initialied to disable-read > only? Yes, I think that would be a natural consequence. However, my immediate need comes from the fact that the AMR register can contain a flag combination that is not possible to represent with the existing PKEY_DISABLE_WRITE and PKEY_DISABLE_ACCESS flags. User code could write to AMR directly, so I cannot rule out that certain flag combinations exist there. So I came up with this: int pkey_get (int key) { if (key < 0 || key > PKEY_MAX) { __set_errno (EINVAL); return -1; } unsigned int index = pkey_index (key); unsigned long int amr = pkey_read (); unsigned int bits = (amr >> index) & 3; /* Translate from AMR values. PKEY_AMR_READ standing alone is not currently representable. */ if (bits & PKEY_AMR_READ) return PKEY_DISABLE_ACCESS; else if (bits == PKEY_AMR_WRITE) return PKEY_DISABLE_WRITE; return 0; } And this is not ideal. I would prefer something like this instead: switch (bits) { case PKEY_AMR_READ | PKEY_AMR_WRITE: return PKEY_DISABLE_ACCESS; case PKEY_AMR_READ: return PKEY_DISABLE_READ; case PKEY_AMR_WRITE: return PKEY_DISABLE_WRITE; case 0: return 0; } By the way, is the AMR register 64-bit or 32-bit on 32-bit POWER? Thanks, Florian