From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [112.213.38.117]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AEA4FC3DA49 for ; Thu, 25 Jul 2024 15:49:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from boromir.ozlabs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4WVFgm2zqSz3dK6 for ; Fri, 26 Jul 2024 01:49:40 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=arm.com (client-ip=217.140.110.172; helo=foss.arm.com; envelope-from=dave.martin@arm.com; receiver=lists.ozlabs.org) Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com [217.140.110.172]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4WVFgM0bCRz3cXj for ; Fri, 26 Jul 2024 01:49:18 +1000 (AEST) 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 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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: szabolcs.nagy@arm.com, catalin.marinas@arm.com, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, Joey Gouly , linux-mm@kvack.org, hpa@zytor.com, shuah@kernel.org, maz@kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu, aneesh.kumar@kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com, aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com, naveen.n.rao@linux.ibm.com, will@kernel.org, npiggin@gmail.com, broonie@kernel.org, bp@alien8.de, kvmarm@lists.linux.dev, tglx@linutronix.de, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, oliver.upton@linux.dev, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" 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