Re: [PATCH] docs: proc: document ProtectionKey in smaps

[Kevin Brodsky]

On 08/04/2026 09:39, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote:
> On 4/8/26 09:15, Kevin Brodsky wrote:
>> On 08/04/2026 09:05, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote:
>>>> I think that "system" is too nebulous there, so I would prefer to see
>>>> "hardware" instead.
>>> What if you're running in a VM where the feature is hidden ... ?
>> Of course that's also possible, "hardware" has to be interpreted in the
>> context of virtualisation... But granted it is possible to hide features
>> even on the host with the right kernel parameter, on arm64 at least.
>>
>> "If the kernel supports protection keys (pkeys) and the hardware feature
>> is detected"? Still vague but a little more accurate.
> Can we just talk about CPU support, to avoid using "system" or "hardware" ?

I'm not sure how this addresses your concern with virtualisation though,
unless "CPU" is understood as whatever CPU is virtualised? But then the
same logic could apply to "hardware"...

Either way, I'm really not all that picky about it, I don't mind: "If
both the kernel and the CPU support protection keys"

- Kevin