From: Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Ram Pai <linuxram@us.ibm.com>
Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, benh@kernel.crashing.org,
paulus@samba.org, mpe@ellerman.id.au,
khandual@linux.vnet.ibm.com, aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
bsingharora@gmail.com, hbabu@us.ibm.com, mhocko@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC v7 25/25] powerpc: Enable pkey subsystem
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2017 17:30:27 -0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87efsaym1o.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170817174014.GG5505@ram.oc3035372033.ibm.com>
Ram Pai <linuxram@us.ibm.com> writes:
> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 06:27:34PM -0300, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:
>>
>> Ram Pai <linuxram@us.ibm.com> writes:
>> > --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/cputable.h
>> > +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/cputable.h
>> > @@ -214,6 +214,7 @@ enum {
>> > #define CPU_FTR_DAWR LONG_ASM_CONST(0x0400000000000000)
>> > #define CPU_FTR_DABRX LONG_ASM_CONST(0x0800000000000000)
>> > #define CPU_FTR_PMAO_BUG LONG_ASM_CONST(0x1000000000000000)
>> > +#define CPU_FTR_PKEY LONG_ASM_CONST(0x2000000000000000)
>> > #define CPU_FTR_POWER9_DD1 LONG_ASM_CONST(0x4000000000000000)
>> >
>> > #ifndef __ASSEMBLY__
>> > @@ -452,7 +453,7 @@ enum {
>> > CPU_FTR_DSCR | CPU_FTR_SAO | CPU_FTR_ASYM_SMT | \
>> > CPU_FTR_STCX_CHECKS_ADDRESS | CPU_FTR_POPCNTB | CPU_FTR_POPCNTD | \
>> > CPU_FTR_ICSWX | CPU_FTR_CFAR | CPU_FTR_HVMODE | \
>> > - CPU_FTR_VMX_COPY | CPU_FTR_HAS_PPR | CPU_FTR_DABRX)
>> > + CPU_FTR_VMX_COPY | CPU_FTR_HAS_PPR | CPU_FTR_DABRX | CPU_FTR_PKEY)
>>
>> P7 supports protection keys for data access (AMR) but not for
>> instruction access (IAMR), right? There's nothing in the code making
>> this distinction, so either CPU_FTR_PKEY shouldn't be enabled in P7 or
>> separate feature bits for AMR and IAMR should be used and checked before
>> trying to access the IAMR.
>
> did'nt David say P7 supports both? P6, i think, only support data.
> my pkey tests have passed on p7.
He said that P7 was the first processor to support 32 keys, but if you
look at the Virtual Page Class Key Protection section in ISA 2.06,
there's no IAMR.
There was a bug in the code where init_iamr was calling write_amr
instead of write_iamr, perhaps that's why it worked when you tested on P7?
>>
>> > #define CPU_FTRS_POWER8 (CPU_FTR_USE_TB | CPU_FTR_LWSYNC | \
>> > CPU_FTR_PPCAS_ARCH_V2 | CPU_FTR_CTRL | CPU_FTR_ARCH_206 |\
>> > CPU_FTR_MMCRA | CPU_FTR_SMT | \
>> > @@ -462,7 +463,7 @@ enum {
>> > CPU_FTR_STCX_CHECKS_ADDRESS | CPU_FTR_POPCNTB | CPU_FTR_POPCNTD | \
>> > CPU_FTR_ICSWX | CPU_FTR_CFAR | CPU_FTR_HVMODE | CPU_FTR_VMX_COPY | \
>> > CPU_FTR_DBELL | CPU_FTR_HAS_PPR | CPU_FTR_DAWR | \
>> > - CPU_FTR_ARCH_207S | CPU_FTR_TM_COMP)
>> > + CPU_FTR_ARCH_207S | CPU_FTR_TM_COMP | CPU_FTR_PKEY)
>> > #define CPU_FTRS_POWER8E (CPU_FTRS_POWER8 | CPU_FTR_PMAO_BUG)
>> > #define CPU_FTRS_POWER8_DD1 (CPU_FTRS_POWER8 & ~CPU_FTR_DBELL)
>> > #define CPU_FTRS_POWER9 (CPU_FTR_USE_TB | CPU_FTR_LWSYNC | \
>> > @@ -474,7 +475,8 @@ enum {
>> > CPU_FTR_STCX_CHECKS_ADDRESS | CPU_FTR_POPCNTB | CPU_FTR_POPCNTD | \
>> > CPU_FTR_CFAR | CPU_FTR_HVMODE | CPU_FTR_VMX_COPY | \
>> > CPU_FTR_DBELL | CPU_FTR_HAS_PPR | CPU_FTR_DAWR | \
>> > - CPU_FTR_ARCH_207S | CPU_FTR_TM_COMP | CPU_FTR_ARCH_300)
>> > + CPU_FTR_ARCH_207S | CPU_FTR_TM_COMP | CPU_FTR_ARCH_300 | \
>> > + CPU_FTR_PKEY)
>> > #define CPU_FTRS_POWER9_DD1 ((CPU_FTRS_POWER9 | CPU_FTR_POWER9_DD1) & \
>> > (~CPU_FTR_SAO))
>> > #define CPU_FTRS_CELL (CPU_FTR_USE_TB | CPU_FTR_LWSYNC | \
>> > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/mmu_context.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/mmu_context.h
>> > index a1cfcca..acd59d8 100644
>> > --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/mmu_context.h
>> > +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/mmu_context.h
>> > @@ -188,6 +188,7 @@ static inline bool arch_vma_access_permitted(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>> >
>> > #define pkey_initialize()
>> > #define pkey_mm_init(mm)
>> > +#define pkey_mmu_values(total_data, total_execute)
>> >
>> > static inline int vma_pkey(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
>> > {
>> > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/pkeys.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/pkeys.h
>> > index ba7bff6..e61ed6c 100644
>> > --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/pkeys.h
>> > +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/pkeys.h
>> > @@ -1,6 +1,8 @@
>> > #ifndef _ASM_PPC64_PKEYS_H
>> > #define _ASM_PPC64_PKEYS_H
>> >
>> > +#include <asm/firmware.h>
>> > +
>> > extern bool pkey_inited;
>> > extern int pkeys_total; /* total pkeys as per device tree */
>> > extern u32 initial_allocation_mask;/* bits set for reserved keys */
>> > @@ -227,6 +229,24 @@ static inline void pkey_mm_init(struct mm_struct *mm)
>> > mm->context.execute_only_pkey = -1;
>> > }
>> >
>> > +static inline void pkey_mmu_values(int total_data, int total_execute)
>> > +{
>> > + /*
>> > + * since any pkey can be used for data or execute, we
>> > + * will just treat all keys as equal and track them
>> > + * as one entity.
>> > + */
>> > + pkeys_total = total_data + total_execute;
>> > +}
>>
>> Right now this works because the firmware reports 0 execute keys in the
>> device tree, but if (when?) it is fixed to report 32 execute keys as
>> well as 32 data keys (which are the same keys), any place using
>> pkeys_total expecting it to mean the number of keys that are available
>> will be broken. This includes pkey_initialize and mm_pkey_is_allocated.
>
> Good point. we should just ignore total_execute. It should
> be the same value as total_data on the latest platforms.
> On older platforms it will continue to be zero.
Indeed. There should just be a special case to disable execute
protection for P7.
>> Perhaps pkeys_total should use total_data as the number of keys
>> supported in the system, and total_execute just as a flag to say whether
>> there's a IAMR? Or, since P8 and later have IAMR and P7 is unlikely to
>> have the firmware fixed, maybe the kernel should just ignore
>> total_execute altogether?
--
Thiago Jung Bauermann
IBM Linux Technology Center
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-08-17 20:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 67+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-07-31 0:12 [RFC v7 00/25] powerpc: Memory Protection Keys Ram Pai
2017-07-31 0:12 ` [RFC v7 01/25] powerpc: define an additional vma bit for protection keys Ram Pai
2017-07-31 0:12 ` [RFC v7 02/25] powerpc: track allocation status of all pkeys Ram Pai
2017-08-10 20:25 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2017-08-11 5:39 ` Michael Ellerman
2017-08-17 16:00 ` Ram Pai
2017-08-17 15:48 ` Ram Pai
2017-08-17 20:40 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2017-10-18 2:42 ` Balbir Singh
2017-10-18 3:40 ` Ram Pai
2017-10-18 16:08 ` Laurent Dufour
2017-10-18 22:04 ` Ram Pai
2017-07-31 0:12 ` [RFC v7 03/25] powerpc: helper function to read, write AMR, IAMR, UAMOR registers Ram Pai
2017-07-31 0:12 ` [RFC v7 04/25] powerpc: helper functions to initialize AMR, IAMR and " Ram Pai
2017-07-31 0:12 ` [RFC v7 05/25] powerpc: cleaup AMR, iAMR when a key is allocated or freed Ram Pai
2017-07-31 0:12 ` [RFC v7 06/25] powerpc: implementation for arch_set_user_pkey_access() Ram Pai
2017-07-31 0:12 ` [RFC v7 07/25] powerpc: sys_pkey_alloc() and sys_pkey_free() system calls Ram Pai
2017-07-31 0:12 ` [RFC v7 08/25] powerpc: ability to create execute-disabled pkeys Ram Pai
2017-07-31 0:12 ` [RFC v7 09/25] powerpc: store and restore the pkey state across context switches Ram Pai
2017-08-10 20:46 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2017-08-11 6:34 ` Michael Ellerman
2017-08-17 16:41 ` Ram Pai
2017-07-31 0:12 ` [RFC v7 10/25] powerpc: introduce execute-only pkey Ram Pai
2017-07-31 0:12 ` [RFC v7 11/25] powerpc: ability to associate pkey to a vma Ram Pai
2017-07-31 0:12 ` [RFC v7 12/25] powerpc: implementation for arch_override_mprotect_pkey() Ram Pai
2017-10-18 15:58 ` Laurent Dufour
2017-10-18 21:37 ` Ram Pai
2017-07-31 0:12 ` [RFC v7 13/25] powerpc: map vma key-protection bits to pte key bits Ram Pai
2017-07-31 0:12 ` [RFC v7 14/25] powerpc: sys_pkey_mprotect() system call Ram Pai
2017-07-31 0:12 ` [RFC v7 15/25] powerpc: Program HPTE key protection bits Ram Pai
2017-10-18 16:15 ` Laurent Dufour
2017-10-18 22:12 ` Ram Pai
2017-10-19 5:12 ` Michael Ellerman
2017-07-31 0:12 ` [RFC v7 16/25] powerpc: helper to validate key-access permissions of a pte Ram Pai
2017-10-18 16:08 ` Laurent Dufour
2017-10-18 21:56 ` Ram Pai
2017-10-19 5:13 ` Michael Ellerman
2017-07-31 0:12 ` [RFC v7 17/25] powerpc: check key protection for user page access Ram Pai
2017-07-31 0:12 ` [RFC v7 18/25] powerpc: Macro the mask used for checking DSI exception Ram Pai
2017-07-31 0:12 ` [RFC v7 19/25] powerpc: implementation for arch_vma_access_permitted() Ram Pai
2017-07-31 0:12 ` [RFC v7 20/25] powerpc: Handle exceptions caused by pkey violation Ram Pai
2017-07-31 0:12 ` [RFC v7 21/25] powerpc: capture AMR register content on " Ram Pai
2017-07-31 0:12 ` [RFC v7 22/25] powerpc: introduce get_pte_pkey() helper Ram Pai
2017-07-31 0:12 ` [RFC v7 23/25] powerpc: capture the violated protection key on fault Ram Pai
2017-07-31 0:12 ` [RFC v7 24/25] powerpc: Deliver SEGV signal on pkey violation Ram Pai
2017-08-10 21:00 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2017-08-11 10:26 ` Michael Ellerman
2017-08-17 17:14 ` Ram Pai
2017-08-18 4:48 ` Michael Ellerman
2017-08-18 17:04 ` Ram Pai
2017-08-18 21:54 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2017-08-18 22:36 ` Ram Pai
2017-10-18 2:25 ` Balbir Singh
2017-10-18 3:01 ` Ram Pai
2017-08-18 22:49 ` Ram Pai
2017-08-19 8:23 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2017-07-31 0:12 ` [RFC v7 25/25] powerpc: Enable pkey subsystem Ram Pai
2017-08-10 21:27 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2017-08-17 17:40 ` Ram Pai
2017-08-17 20:30 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann [this message]
2017-08-17 23:48 ` Ram Pai
2017-08-18 5:07 ` Michael Ellerman
2017-08-18 15:26 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2017-08-18 16:32 ` Ram Pai
2017-08-11 17:34 ` [RFC v7 26/25] mm/mprotect, powerpc/mm/pkeys, x86/mm/pkeys: Add sysfs interface Thiago Jung Bauermann
2017-08-18 0:25 ` Ram Pai
2017-08-18 23:19 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
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=87efsaym1o.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=bauerman@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=bsingharora@gmail.com \
--cc=hbabu@us.ibm.com \
--cc=khandual@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=linuxram@us.ibm.com \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
--cc=paulus@samba.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).