From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ebiederm at xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2018 10:09:41 -0600 Subject: [Linux-kselftest-mirror] [PATCH v10 27/27] mm: display pkey in smaps if arch_pkeys_enabled() is true In-Reply-To: <1516326648-22775-28-git-send-email-linuxram@us.ibm.com> (Ram Pai's message of "Thu, 18 Jan 2018 17:50:48 -0800") References: <1516326648-22775-1-git-send-email-linuxram@us.ibm.com> <1516326648-22775-28-git-send-email-linuxram@us.ibm.com> Message-ID: <87shb1de4a.fsf@xmission.com> Ram Pai writes: > Currently the architecture specific code is expected to > display the protection keys in smap for a given vma. > This can lead to redundant code and possibly to divergent > formats in which the key gets displayed. > > This patch changes the implementation. It displays the > pkey only if the architecture support pkeys. > > x86 arch_show_smap() function is not needed anymore. > Delete it. > > Signed-off-by: Ram Pai > --- > arch/x86/kernel/setup.c | 8 -------- > fs/proc/task_mmu.c | 11 ++++++----- > 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c b/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c > index 8af2e8d..ddf945a 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c > @@ -1326,11 +1326,3 @@ static int __init register_kernel_offset_dumper(void) > return 0; > } > __initcall(register_kernel_offset_dumper); > - > -void arch_show_smap(struct seq_file *m, struct vm_area_struct *vma) > -{ > - if (!boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_OSPKE)) > - return; > - > - seq_printf(m, "ProtectionKey: %8u\n", vma_pkey(vma)); > -} > diff --git a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c > index 0edd4da..4b39a94 100644 > --- a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c > +++ b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c > @@ -18,6 +18,7 @@ > #include > #include > #include > +#include > > #include > #include > @@ -728,10 +729,6 @@ static int smaps_hugetlb_range(pte_t *pte, unsigned long hmask, > } > #endif /* HUGETLB_PAGE */ > > -void __weak arch_show_smap(struct seq_file *m, struct vm_area_struct *vma) > -{ > -} > - > static int show_smap(struct seq_file *m, void *v, int is_pid) > { > struct proc_maps_private *priv = m->private; > @@ -851,9 +848,13 @@ static int show_smap(struct seq_file *m, void *v, int is_pid) > (unsigned long)(mss->pss >> (10 + PSS_SHIFT))); > > if (!rollup_mode) { > - arch_show_smap(m, vma); > +#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_PKEYS > + if (arch_pkeys_enabled()) > + seq_printf(m, "ProtectionKey: %8u\n", vma_pkey(vma)); > +#endif Would it be worth it making vma_pkey a noop on architectures that don't support protection keys so that we don't need the #ifdef here? Eric > show_smap_vma_flags(m, vma); > } > + > m_cache_vma(m, vma); > return ret; > } -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kselftest" in the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2018 10:09:41 -0600 Subject: [Linux-kselftest-mirror] [PATCH v10 27/27] mm: display pkey in smaps if arch_pkeys_enabled() is true In-Reply-To: <1516326648-22775-28-git-send-email-linuxram@us.ibm.com> (Ram Pai's message of "Thu, 18 Jan 2018 17:50:48 -0800") References: <1516326648-22775-1-git-send-email-linuxram@us.ibm.com> <1516326648-22775-28-git-send-email-linuxram@us.ibm.com> Message-ID: <87shb1de4a.fsf@xmission.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Message-ID: <20180119160941.cjYC9gmR3mxwwv2fjna-ayvU0JF4NYOFvUMsLuFiuR0@z> Ram Pai writes: > Currently the architecture specific code is expected to > display the protection keys in smap for a given vma. > This can lead to redundant code and possibly to divergent > formats in which the key gets displayed. > > This patch changes the implementation. It displays the > pkey only if the architecture support pkeys. > > x86 arch_show_smap() function is not needed anymore. > Delete it. > > Signed-off-by: Ram Pai > --- > arch/x86/kernel/setup.c | 8 -------- > fs/proc/task_mmu.c | 11 ++++++----- > 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c b/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c > index 8af2e8d..ddf945a 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c > @@ -1326,11 +1326,3 @@ static int __init register_kernel_offset_dumper(void) > return 0; > } > __initcall(register_kernel_offset_dumper); > - > -void arch_show_smap(struct seq_file *m, struct vm_area_struct *vma) > -{ > - if (!boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_OSPKE)) > - return; > - > - seq_printf(m, "ProtectionKey: %8u\n", vma_pkey(vma)); > -} > diff --git a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c > index 0edd4da..4b39a94 100644 > --- a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c > +++ b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c > @@ -18,6 +18,7 @@ > #include > #include > #include > +#include > > #include > #include > @@ -728,10 +729,6 @@ static int smaps_hugetlb_range(pte_t *pte, unsigned long hmask, > } > #endif /* HUGETLB_PAGE */ > > -void __weak arch_show_smap(struct seq_file *m, struct vm_area_struct *vma) > -{ > -} > - > static int show_smap(struct seq_file *m, void *v, int is_pid) > { > struct proc_maps_private *priv = m->private; > @@ -851,9 +848,13 @@ static int show_smap(struct seq_file *m, void *v, int is_pid) > (unsigned long)(mss->pss >> (10 + PSS_SHIFT))); > > if (!rollup_mode) { > - arch_show_smap(m, vma); > +#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_PKEYS > + if (arch_pkeys_enabled()) > + seq_printf(m, "ProtectionKey: %8u\n", vma_pkey(vma)); > +#endif Would it be worth it making vma_pkey a noop on architectures that don't support protection keys so that we don't need the #ifdef here? Eric > show_smap_vma_flags(m, vma); > } > + > m_cache_vma(m, vma); > return ret; > } -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kselftest" in the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html