Re: [PATCH v3 2/5] mm/mseal: update madvise() logic

[David Hildenbrand]

On 24.07.25 23:32, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > As an aside, why should discard work in this case even without step 4?
> > Wouldn't setting "read-only" imply you don't want the memory to change
> > out from under you? I guess I'm not clear on the semantics: how do memory
> > protection bits map to madvise actions like this?
>
> They generally don't affect MADV_DONTNEED behavior. The only documented
> (man page) reason for EPERM in the man page is related to MADV_HWPOISON.

(Exception: MADV_POPULATE_READ/MADV_POPULATE_WRITE requires 
corresponding permissions)

--
Cheers,

David / dhildenb