From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com [217.140.110.172]) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0DE719B5BE for ; Thu, 25 Jul 2024 15:48:48 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.140.110.172 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1721922530; cv=none; b=crnzU0SWvKlAkC//4XPkA+qPWxblxCMkW9ku+mSBaxtbV0XFKU7pin7P7pPj236BmPUaWHDx2QkvMTfnROGQVFd2t/oj7iuSe3T54pf+XeFNUsG+vdGGh8nPPTSQ5LUHIPgXkLCMydkfaZp3Q+TP4lGkxnMW9XOurFdlLyFrke0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1721922530; c=relaxed/simple; bh=9veYD6Cw20WWIP5a5rcYdQynxeXuIU3pwTIEVcyvAh0=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=q0dc2DLgJTVg7zggdeie00RSuuMVKNAwTx+NA+cycYDK+UPBuG1Nh9qRRr/vqSc6BEBs0SSetrrrWARh+Qw3x1olBsP3DwjL7lz4pRXwfa+F9unib+jak0UHPkVmo5f3EiPrhCa4oO5Bd/VB1+5XrlfwqFIcuvxvqOl/7fJv8sk= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=arm.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.140.110.172 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=arm.com Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78FD21476; Thu, 25 Jul 2024 08:49:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from e133380.arm.com (e133380.arm.com [10.1.197.55]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2FA393F766; Thu, 25 Jul 2024 08:48:44 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2024 16:48:41 +0100 From: Dave Martin To: Anshuman Khandual Cc: Joey Gouly , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, aneesh.kumar@kernel.org, aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com, bp@alien8.de, broonie@kernel.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com, christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, hpa@zytor.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, maz@kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com, mpe@ellerman.id.au, naveen.n.rao@linux.ibm.com, npiggin@gmail.com, oliver.upton@linux.dev, shuah@kernel.org, szabolcs.nagy@arm.com, tglx@linutronix.de, will@kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, kvmarm@lists.linux.dev Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 19/29] arm64: enable PKEY support for CPUs with S1POE Message-ID: References: <20240503130147.1154804-1-joey.gouly@arm.com> <20240503130147.1154804-20-joey.gouly@arm.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 04:17:12PM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote: > > > On 5/3/24 18:31, Joey Gouly wrote: > > Now that PKEYs support has been implemented, enable it for CPUs that > > support S1POE. > > > > Signed-off-by: Joey Gouly > > Cc: Catalin Marinas > > Cc: Will Deacon > > Acked-by: Catalin Marinas > > Reviewed-by: Anshuman Khandual > > > --- > > arch/arm64/include/asm/pkeys.h | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/pkeys.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/pkeys.h > > index a284508a4d02..3ea928ec94c0 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/pkeys.h > > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/pkeys.h > > @@ -17,7 +17,7 @@ int arch_set_user_pkey_access(struct task_struct *tsk, int pkey, > > > > static inline bool arch_pkeys_enabled(void) > > { > > - return false; > > + return system_supports_poe(); > > } > > > > static inline int vma_pkey(struct vm_area_struct *vma) > > Small nit. Would it better to be consistently using system_supports_poe() > helper rather than arch_pkeys_enabled() inside arch/arm64/ platform code > like - during POE fault handling i.e inside fault_from_pkey(). > (FWIW, arch_pkeys_enabled() looks like the hook for the arch to tell the pkeys generic code whether the arch support is there, so I guess the proposed change looks sensible to me. For the arch backend code that is agnostic to whether pkeys is actually in use, system_supports_poe() seems to be the more appropriate check.) Cheers ---Dave