On Thu, 3 Dec 2015, Dave Hansen wrote: > I don't have a strong opinion on whether we need this 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. The tiny kernel folks are happy about every few kB which are NOT added by default. > > Signed-off-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Reviewed-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > > b/arch/x86/Kconfig | 10 ++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+) > > diff -puN arch/x86/Kconfig~pkeys-40-kconfig-prompt arch/x86/Kconfig > --- a/arch/x86/Kconfig~pkeys-40-kconfig-prompt 2015-12-03 16:21:28.726811905 -0800 > +++ b/arch/x86/Kconfig 2015-12-03 16:21:28.730812086 -0800 > @@ -1682,8 +1682,18 @@ config X86_INTEL_MPX > If unsure, say N. > > config X86_INTEL_MEMORY_PROTECTION_KEYS > + prompt "Intel Memory Protection Keys" > def_bool y > + # Note: only available in 64-bit mode > depends on CPU_SUP_INTEL && X86_64 > + ---help--- > + Memory Protection Keys provides a mechanism for enforcing > + page-based protections, but without requiring modification of the > + page tables when an application changes protection domains. > + > + For details, see Documentation/x86/protection-keys.txt > + > + If unsure, say y. > > config EFI > bool "EFI runtime service support" > _ > -- 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>