From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <owner-linux-mm@kvack.org>
Received: from mail-wm0-f69.google.com (mail-wm0-f69.google.com [74.125.82.69])
	by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11B616B0027
	for <linux-mm@kvack.org>; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 15:46:05 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by mail-wm0-f69.google.com with SMTP id p4so1409405wmc.8
        for <linux-mm@kvack.org>; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 12:46:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Galois.linutronix.de (Galois.linutronix.de. [2a01:7a0:2:106d:700::1])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id j19si6920826wre.173.2018.03.23.12.46.03
        for <linux-mm@kvack.org>
        (version=TLS1_2 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128/128);
        Fri, 23 Mar 2018 12:46:03 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 20:45:59 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/9] x86, pkeys: override pkey when moving away from
 PROT_EXEC
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1803232036140.1481@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1803232044350.1481@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
References: <20180323180903.33B17168@viggo.jf.intel.com> <20180323180911.E43ACAB8@viggo.jf.intel.com> <CALvZod6F8x-smAE7sEGfJ3Ds5p6M5Qj6gd-P-VLejuBxfU6niQ@mail.gmail.com> <f7897068-18a3-d88b-0458-5dcf05d7ffc2@intel.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.1803232036140.1481@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org
List-ID: <linux-mm.kvack.org>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
Cc: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>, linuxram@us.ibm.com, mpe@ellerman.id.au, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, shuah@kernel.org

On Fri, 23 Mar 2018, Thomas Gleixner wrote:

> On Fri, 23 Mar 2018, Dave Hansen wrote:
> 
> > On 03/23/2018 12:15 PM, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> > >> We had a check for PROT_READ/WRITE, but it did not work
> > >> for PROT_NONE.  This entirely removes the PROT_* checks,
> > >> which ensures that PROT_NONE now works.
> > >>
> > >> Reported-by: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>
> > >> Signed-off-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
> > > Should there be a 'Fixes' tag? Also should this patch go to stable?
> > 
> > There could be, but I'm to lazy to dig up the original commit.  Does it
> > matter?
> > 
> > And, yes, I think it probably makes sense for -stable.  I'll add that if
> > I resend this series.
> 
> The fixes tag makes sense in general even if the patch is not tagged for
> stable. It gives you immediate context and I use it a lot to look why this
> went unnoticed or what the context of that change was.

That said, I'm even lazier than you and prefer you to dig up the original
commit :)

Thanks,

	tglx