Re: [PATCH v2] sparc64: Add support for Application Data Integrity (ADI)

[Khalid Aziz]

On 03/07/2016 02:34 PM, David Miller wrote:
> From: Khalid Aziz <khalid.aziz@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2016 14:27:09 -0700
>
> > I agree with your point of view. PSTATE.mcde and TTE.mcd are set in
> > response to request from userspace. If userspace asked for them to be
> > set, they already know but it was the database guys that asked for
> > these two functions and they are the primary customers for the ADI
> > feature. I am not crazy about this idea since this extends the
> > mprotect API even further but would you consider using the return
> > value from mprotect to indicate if PSTATE.mcde or TTE.mcd were already
> > set on the given address?
>
> Well, that's the idea.
>
> If the mprotect using MAP_ADI or whatever succeeds, then ADI is
> enabled.
>
> Users can thus also pass MAP_ADI as a flag to mmap() to get ADI
> protection from the very beginning.

MAP_ADI has been sitting in my backlog for some time. Looks like you 
just raised its priority ;)

--
Khalid