Re: [PATCHv3 07/17] x86/mm: Preserve KeyID on pte_modify() and pgprot_modify()

Kirill A. Shutemov
2018-06-15T16:06:20Z

On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 03:31:57PM +0000, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 06/15/2018 08:27 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 01:43:03PM +0000, Dave Hansen wrote:
> >> On 06/15/2018 05:57 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> >>>>> +#define _PAGE_CHG_MASK (PTE_PFN_MASK_MAX | _PAGE_PCD | _PAGE_PWT | \
> >>>>> _PAGE_SPECIAL | _PAGE_ACCESSED | _PAGE_DIRTY | \
> >>>>> _PAGE_SOFT_DIRTY)
> >>>>> #define _HPAGE_CHG_MASK (_PAGE_CHG_MASK | _PAGE_PSE)
> >>>> This makes me a bit nervous. We have some places (here) where we
> >>>> pretend that the KeyID is part of the paddr and then other places like
> >>>> pte_pfn() where it's not.
> >>> Other option is to include KeyID mask into _PAGE_CHG_MASK. But it means
> >>> _PAGE_CHG_MASK would need to reference *two* variables: physical_mask and
> >>> mktme_keyid_mask. I mentioned this in the commit message.
> >>
> >> Why can't it be one variable with a different name that's populated by
> >> OR'ing physical_mask and mktme_keyid_mask together?
> >
> > My point is that we don't need variables at all here.
> >
> > Architecture defines range of bits in PTE used for PFN. MKTME reduces the
> > number of bits for PFN. PTE_PFN_MASK_MAX represents the original
> > architectural range, before MKTME stole these bits.
> >
> > PTE_PFN_MASK_MAX is constant -- on x86-64 bits 51:12 -- regardless of
> > MKTME support.
>
> Then please just rename the make PTE_<SOMETHING>_MASK where <SOMETHING>
> includes both the concept of a physical address and a MKTME keyID. Just
> don't call it a pfn if it is not used in physical addressing.

I have no idea what such concept should be called. I cannot come with
anything better than PTE_PFN_MASK_MAX. Do you?

--
Kirill A. Shutemov