From: Ram Pai <linuxram@us.ibm.com>
To: Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
linux-api@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: pkeys: Reserve PKEY_DISABLE_READ
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2018 10:09:47 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181109180947.GF5481@ram.oc3035372033.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87bm6z71yw.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com>
On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 09:23:35PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * 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)
this should be
if (bits & (PKEY_AMR_READ|PKEY_AMR_WRITE))
> 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;
> }
yes.
and on x86 it will be something like:
switch (bits)
{
case PKEY_PKRU_ACCESS :
return PKEY_DISABLE_ACCESS;
case PKEY_AMR_WRITE:
return PKEY_DISABLE_WRITE;
case 0:
return 0;
}
But for this to work, why do you need to enhance the sys_pkey_alloc()
interface? Not that I am against it. Trying to understand if the
enhancement is really needed.
>
> By the way, is the AMR register 64-bit or 32-bit on 32-bit POWER?
It is 64-bit.
RP
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-11-09 18:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-11-08 12:05 pkeys: Reserve PKEY_DISABLE_READ Florian Weimer
2018-11-08 14:57 ` Dave Hansen
2018-11-08 15:01 ` Florian Weimer
2018-11-08 17:14 ` Dave Hansen
2018-11-08 17:37 ` Florian Weimer
2018-11-08 20:12 ` Ram Pai
2018-11-08 20:23 ` Florian Weimer
2018-11-09 18:09 ` Ram Pai [this message]
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
2018-11-08 20:08 ` Ram Pai
2018-11-08 20:11 ` Dave Hansen
2018-11-08 20:14 ` Florian Weimer
2018-11-08 19:22 ` Ram Pai
2018-11-12 10:29 ` Florian Weimer
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=20181109180947.GF5481@ram.oc3035372033.ibm.com \
--to=linuxram@us.ibm.com \
--cc=dave.hansen@intel.com \
--cc=fweimer@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-api@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
/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).