From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752807AbcAGABS (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Jan 2016 19:01:18 -0500 Received: from mga14.intel.com ([192.55.52.115]:7601 "EHLO mga14.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752493AbcAGABL (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Jan 2016 19:01:11 -0500 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.20,530,1444719600"; d="scan'208";a="721683374" Subject: [PATCH 03/31] 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: Wed, 06 Jan 2016 16:01:09 -0800 References: <20160107000104.1A105322@viggo.jf.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <20160107000104.1A105322@viggo.jf.intel.com> Message-Id: <20160107000109.E671EBF4@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 2016-01-06 15:50:03.902078982 -0800 +++ b/arch/x86/Kconfig 2016-01-06 15:50:03.905079117 -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 _