From: Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>
To: Ram Pai <linuxram@us.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: pkeys: Reserve PKEY_DISABLE_READ
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2018 21:23:35 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87bm6z71yw.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181108201231.GE5481@ram.oc3035372033.ibm.com> (Ram Pai's message of "Thu, 8 Nov 2018 12:12:31 -0800")
* Ram Pai:
> Florian,
>
> I can. But I am struggling to understand the requirement. Why is
> this needed? Are we proposing a enhancement to the sys_pkey_alloc(),
> to be able to allocate keys that are initialied to disable-read
> only?
Yes, I think that would be a natural consequence.
However, my immediate need comes from the fact that the AMR register can
contain a flag combination that is not possible to represent with the
existing PKEY_DISABLE_WRITE and PKEY_DISABLE_ACCESS flags. User code
could write to AMR directly, so I cannot rule out that certain flag
combinations exist there.
So I came up with this:
int
pkey_get (int key)
{
if (key < 0 || key > PKEY_MAX)
{
__set_errno (EINVAL);
return -1;
}
unsigned int index = pkey_index (key);
unsigned long int amr = pkey_read ();
unsigned int bits = (amr >> index) & 3;
/* Translate from AMR values. PKEY_AMR_READ standing alone is not
currently representable. */
if (bits & PKEY_AMR_READ)
return PKEY_DISABLE_ACCESS;
else if (bits == PKEY_AMR_WRITE)
return PKEY_DISABLE_WRITE;
return 0;
}
And this is not ideal. I would prefer something like this instead:
switch (bits)
{
case PKEY_AMR_READ | PKEY_AMR_WRITE:
return PKEY_DISABLE_ACCESS;
case PKEY_AMR_READ:
return PKEY_DISABLE_READ;
case PKEY_AMR_WRITE:
return PKEY_DISABLE_WRITE;
case 0:
return 0;
}
By the way, is the AMR register 64-bit or 32-bit on 32-bit POWER?
Thanks,
Florian
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-11-08 20:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <877ehnbwqy.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com>
2018-11-08 19:22 ` pkeys: Reserve PKEY_DISABLE_READ Ram Pai
2018-11-12 10:29 ` Florian Weimer
[not found] ` <2d62c9e2-375b-2791-32ce-fdaa7e7664fd@intel.com>
[not found] ` <87bm6zaa04.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com>
[not found] ` <6f9c65fb-ea7e-8217-a4cc-f93e766ed9bb@intel.com>
[not found] ` <87k1ln8o7u.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com>
2018-11-08 20:12 ` Ram Pai
2018-11-08 20:23 ` Florian Weimer [this message]
2018-11-09 18:09 ` Ram Pai
2018-11-12 12:00 ` Florian Weimer
2018-11-27 10:23 ` Ram Pai
2018-11-27 11:57 ` Florian Weimer
2018-11-27 15:31 ` Dave Hansen
2018-11-29 11:37 ` Florian Weimer
2018-12-03 4:02 ` Ram Pai
2018-12-03 15:52 ` Florian Weimer
2018-12-04 6:23 ` Ram Pai
2018-12-05 13:00 ` Florian Weimer
2018-12-05 20:23 ` Ram Pai
2018-12-05 16:21 ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-12-05 20:36 ` Ram Pai
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87bm6z71yw.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com \
--to=fweimer@redhat.com \
--cc=dave.hansen@intel.com \
--cc=linux-api@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=linuxram@us.ibm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).