From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <bsingharora@gmail.com>
Received: from mail-pf0-x241.google.com (mail-pf0-x241.google.com
 [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::241])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3yHSRn0w88zDq5x
 for <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>; Thu, 19 Oct 2017 10:09:08 +1100 (AEDT)
Received: by mail-pf0-x241.google.com with SMTP id b6so5066997pfh.7
 for <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>; Wed, 18 Oct 2017 16:09:08 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 10:08:57 +1100
From: Balbir Singh <bsingharora@gmail.com>
To: Ram Pai <linuxram@us.ibm.com>
Cc: mpe@ellerman.id.au, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
 benh@kernel.crashing.org, paulus@samba.org, khandual@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
 aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com, hbabu@us.ibm.com, mhocko@kernel.org,
 bauerman@linux.vnet.ibm.com, ebiederm@xmission.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 18/25] powerpc: check key protection for user page access
Message-ID: <20171019100857.5e79570e@MiWiFi-R3-srv>
In-Reply-To: <20171018212924.GL5617@ram.oc3035372033.ibm.com>
References: <1504910713-7094-1-git-send-email-linuxram@us.ibm.com>
 <1504910713-7094-27-git-send-email-linuxram@us.ibm.com>
 <20171019065732.670b426a@MiWiFi-R3-srv>
 <20171018212924.GL5617@ram.oc3035372033.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List <linuxppc-dev.lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/options/linuxppc-dev>,
 <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
 <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=subscribe>

On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 14:29:24 -0700
Ram Pai <linuxram@us.ibm.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 06:57:32AM +1100, Balbir Singh wrote:
> > On Fri,  8 Sep 2017 15:45:06 -0700
> > Ram Pai <linuxram@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> >   
> > > Make sure that the kernel does not access user pages without
> > > checking their key-protection.
> > >  
> > 
> > Why? This makes the routines AMR/thread specific? Looks like
> > x86 does this as well  
> 
> Yes. the memkey semantics implemented by x86, assumes that the keys and
> their access-permission are per thread.  In other words, a key which is
> enabled in the context of one thread, will not be enabled in the context
> of another thread.
> 
> > but these routines are used by GUP from
> > the kernel.  
> 
> See a problem?
>

No, I don't understand why gup (called from driver context, probably) should
worry about permissions and keys?

Balbir Singh.