From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754326AbbLDBOd (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Dec 2015 20:14:33 -0500 Received: from mga03.intel.com ([134.134.136.65]:56096 "EHLO mga03.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752516AbbLDBO3 (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Dec 2015 20:14:29 -0500 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.20,378,1444719600"; d="scan'208";a="864315608" Subject: [PATCH 03/34] x86, pkeys: Add Kconfig option To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, x86@kernel.org, Dave Hansen , dave.hansen@linux.intel.com From: Dave Hansen Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2015 17:14:29 -0800 References: <20151204011424.8A36E365@viggo.jf.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <20151204011424.8A36E365@viggo.jf.intel.com> Message-Id: <20151204011429.239073E3@viggo.jf.intel.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Dave Hansen I don't have a strong opinion on whether we need a Kconfig prompt 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. Note that, with disabled-features.h, the checks in the code for protection keys are always the same: cpu_has(c, X86_FEATURE_PKU) With the config option disabled, this essentially turns into an #ifdef. We will hide the prompt for now. Signed-off-by: Dave Hansen Reviewed-by: Thomas Gleixner --- b/arch/x86/Kconfig | 4 ++++ 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) diff -puN arch/x86/Kconfig~pkeys-01-kconfig arch/x86/Kconfig --- a/arch/x86/Kconfig~pkeys-01-kconfig 2015-12-03 16:21:19.440390755 -0800 +++ b/arch/x86/Kconfig 2015-12-03 16:21:19.444390937 -0800 @@ -1680,6 +1680,10 @@ config X86_INTEL_MPX If unsure, say N. +config X86_INTEL_MEMORY_PROTECTION_KEYS + def_bool y + depends on CPU_SUP_INTEL && X86_64 + config EFI bool "EFI runtime service support" depends on ACPI _ From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pa0-f51.google.com (mail-pa0-f51.google.com [209.85.220.51]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3232A6B0256 for ; Thu, 3 Dec 2015 20:14:35 -0500 (EST) Received: by pacwq6 with SMTP id wq6so550717pac.1 for ; Thu, 03 Dec 2015 17:14:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from mga02.intel.com (mga02.intel.com. [134.134.136.20]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id 187si15438244pfa.195.2015.12.03.17.14.29 for ; Thu, 03 Dec 2015 17:14:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: [PATCH 03/34] x86, pkeys: Add Kconfig option From: Dave Hansen Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2015 17:14:29 -0800 References: <20151204011424.8A36E365@viggo.jf.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <20151204011424.8A36E365@viggo.jf.intel.com> Message-Id: <20151204011429.239073E3@viggo.jf.intel.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, x86@kernel.org, Dave Hansen , dave.hansen@linux.intel.com From: Dave Hansen I don't have a strong opinion on whether we need a Kconfig prompt 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. Note that, with disabled-features.h, the checks in the code for protection keys are always the same: cpu_has(c, X86_FEATURE_PKU) With the config option disabled, this essentially turns into an #ifdef. We will hide the prompt for now. Signed-off-by: Dave Hansen Reviewed-by: Thomas Gleixner --- b/arch/x86/Kconfig | 4 ++++ 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) diff -puN arch/x86/Kconfig~pkeys-01-kconfig arch/x86/Kconfig --- a/arch/x86/Kconfig~pkeys-01-kconfig 2015-12-03 16:21:19.440390755 -0800 +++ b/arch/x86/Kconfig 2015-12-03 16:21:19.444390937 -0800 @@ -1680,6 +1680,10 @@ config X86_INTEL_MPX If unsure, say N. +config X86_INTEL_MEMORY_PROTECTION_KEYS + def_bool y + depends on CPU_SUP_INTEL && X86_64 + config EFI bool "EFI runtime service support" depends on ACPI _ -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org