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

[David Hildenbrand (Arm)]

On 4/8/26 09:50, Kevin Brodsky wrote:
> On 08/04/2026 09:39, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote:
>> On 4/8/26 09:15, Kevin Brodsky wrote:
>>> 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"

LGTM

-- 
Cheers,

David