From: Ram Pai <linuxram@us.ibm.com>
To: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
benh@kernel.crashing.org, paulus@samba.org,
khandual@linux.vnet.ibm.com, aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
bsingharora@gmail.com, dave.hansen@intel.com, hbabu@us.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 03/12] powerpc: Implement sys_pkey_alloc and sys_pkey_free system call.
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 15:45:44 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170620224544.GE17588@ram.oc3035372033.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <874lvcuq6e.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au>
On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 10:18:01PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> Hi Ram,
>
> Ram Pai <linuxram@us.ibm.com> writes:
> > Sys_pkey_alloc() allocates and returns available pkey
> > Sys_pkey_free() frees up the pkey.
> >
> > Total 32 keys are supported on powerpc. However pkey 0,1 and 31
> > are reserved. So effectively we have 29 pkeys.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ram Pai <linuxram@us.ibm.com>
> > ---
> > include/linux/mm.h | 31 ++++---
> > include/uapi/asm-generic/mman-common.h | 2 +-
>
> Those changes need to be split out and acked by mm folks.
>
> > diff --git a/include/linux/mm.h b/include/linux/mm.h
> > index 7cb17c6..34ddac7 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/mm.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/mm.h
> > @@ -204,26 +204,35 @@ extern int overcommit_kbytes_handler(struct ctl_table *, int, void __user *,
> > #define VM_MERGEABLE 0x80000000 /* KSM may merge identical pages */
> >
> > #ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_USES_HIGH_VMA_FLAGS
> > -#define VM_HIGH_ARCH_BIT_0 32 /* bit only usable on 64-bit architectures */
> > -#define VM_HIGH_ARCH_BIT_1 33 /* bit only usable on 64-bit architectures */
> > -#define VM_HIGH_ARCH_BIT_2 34 /* bit only usable on 64-bit architectures */
> > -#define VM_HIGH_ARCH_BIT_3 35 /* bit only usable on 64-bit architectures */
> > +#define VM_HIGH_ARCH_BIT_0 32 /* bit only usable on 64-bit arch */
> > +#define VM_HIGH_ARCH_BIT_1 33 /* bit only usable on 64-bit arch */
> > +#define VM_HIGH_ARCH_BIT_2 34 /* bit only usable on 64-bit arch */
> > +#define VM_HIGH_ARCH_BIT_3 35 /* bit only usable on 64-bit arch */
>
> Please don't change the comments, it makes the diff harder to read.
The lines were surpassing 80 columns. tried to compress the comments
without loosing meaning. will restore.
>
> You're actually just adding this AFAICS:
>
> > +#define VM_HIGH_ARCH_BIT_4 36 /* bit only usable on 64-bit arch */
>
> > #define VM_HIGH_ARCH_0 BIT(VM_HIGH_ARCH_BIT_0)
> > #define VM_HIGH_ARCH_1 BIT(VM_HIGH_ARCH_BIT_1)
> > #define VM_HIGH_ARCH_2 BIT(VM_HIGH_ARCH_BIT_2)
> > #define VM_HIGH_ARCH_3 BIT(VM_HIGH_ARCH_BIT_3)
> > +#define VM_HIGH_ARCH_4 BIT(VM_HIGH_ARCH_BIT_4)
> > #endif /* CONFIG_ARCH_USES_HIGH_VMA_FLAGS */
> >
> > #if defined(CONFIG_X86)
> ^
> > # define VM_PAT VM_ARCH_1 /* PAT reserves whole VMA at once (x86) */
> > -#if defined (CONFIG_X86_INTEL_MEMORY_PROTECTION_KEYS)
> > -# define VM_PKEY_SHIFT VM_HIGH_ARCH_BIT_0
> > -# define VM_PKEY_BIT0 VM_HIGH_ARCH_0 /* A protection key is a 4-bit value */
> > -# define VM_PKEY_BIT1 VM_HIGH_ARCH_1
> > -# define VM_PKEY_BIT2 VM_HIGH_ARCH_2
> > -# define VM_PKEY_BIT3 VM_HIGH_ARCH_3
> > -#endif
> > +#if defined(CONFIG_X86_INTEL_MEMORY_PROTECTION_KEYS) \
> > + || defined(CONFIG_PPC64_MEMORY_PROTECTION_KEYS)
> > +#define VM_PKEY_SHIFT VM_HIGH_ARCH_BIT_0
> > +#define VM_PKEY_BIT0 VM_HIGH_ARCH_0 /* A protection key is a 5-bit value */
> ^ 4?
> > +#define VM_PKEY_BIT1 VM_HIGH_ARCH_1
> > +#define VM_PKEY_BIT2 VM_HIGH_ARCH_2
> > +#define VM_PKEY_BIT3 VM_HIGH_ARCH_3
> > +#endif /* CONFIG_PPC64_MEMORY_PROTECTION_KEYS */
>
> That appears to be inside an #if defined(CONFIG_X86) ?
>
> > #elif defined(CONFIG_PPC)
> ^
> Should be CONFIG_PPC64_MEMORY_PROTECTION_KEYS no?
Its a little garbled. Will fix it.
>
> > +#define VM_PKEY_BIT0 VM_HIGH_ARCH_0 /* A protection key is a 5-bit value */
> > +#define VM_PKEY_BIT1 VM_HIGH_ARCH_1
> > +#define VM_PKEY_BIT2 VM_HIGH_ARCH_2
> > +#define VM_PKEY_BIT3 VM_HIGH_ARCH_3
> > +#define VM_PKEY_BIT4 VM_HIGH_ARCH_4 /* intel does not use this bit */
> > + /* but reserved for future expansion */
>
> But this hunk is for PPC ?
>
> Is it OK for the other arches & generic code to add another VM_PKEY_BIT4 ?
No. it has to be PPC specific.
>
> Do you need to update show_smap_vma_flags() ?
>
> > # define VM_SAO VM_ARCH_1 /* Strong Access Ordering (powerpc) */
> > #elif defined(CONFIG_PARISC)
> > # define VM_GROWSUP VM_ARCH_1
>
> > diff --git a/include/uapi/asm-generic/mman-common.h b/include/uapi/asm-generic/mman-common.h
> > index 8c27db0..b13ecc6 100644
> > --- a/include/uapi/asm-generic/mman-common.h
> > +++ b/include/uapi/asm-generic/mman-common.h
> > @@ -76,5 +76,5 @@
> > #define PKEY_DISABLE_WRITE 0x2
> > #define PKEY_ACCESS_MASK (PKEY_DISABLE_ACCESS |\
> > PKEY_DISABLE_WRITE)
> > -
> > +#define PKEY_DISABLE_EXECUTE 0x4
>
> How you can set that if it's not in PKEY_ACCESS_MASK?
I was wondering how to handle this. x86 does not support this flag.
However powerpc has the ability to enable/disable execute permission
on a key. It cannot be done from userspace, but can be done through
the sys_mprotect_pkey() sys call. Initially I was thinking of not
enabling it in powerpc aswell, but than i think we should be not block
the hardware feature from being used. I will make
PKEY_DISABLE_EXECUTE as part of the PKEY_ACCESS_MASK, and have powerpc
handle it. Also will x86 patch that return error if the flag is
provided.
makes sense?
Thanks for your comments,
RP
>
> See:
>
> SYSCALL_DEFINE2(pkey_alloc, unsigned long, flags, unsigned long, init_val)
> {
> int pkey;
> int ret;
>
> /* No flags supported yet. */
> if (flags)
> return -EINVAL;
> /* check for unsupported init values */
> if (init_val & ~PKEY_ACCESS_MASK)
> return -EINVAL;
>
>
> cheers
--
Ram Pai
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-06-20 22:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 56+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-06-17 3:52 [RFC v2 00/12] powerpc: Memory Protection Keys Ram Pai
2017-06-17 3:52 ` [RFC v2 01/12] powerpc: Free up four 64K PTE bits in 4K backed hpte pages Ram Pai
2017-06-20 10:20 ` Anshuman Khandual
2017-06-20 23:23 ` Ram Pai
2017-06-21 5:35 ` Anshuman Khandual
2017-06-21 6:34 ` Ram Pai
2017-06-21 6:41 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2017-06-21 9:30 ` Ram Pai
2017-06-22 9:07 ` Anshuman Khandual
2017-06-22 16:20 ` Ram Pai
2017-06-17 3:52 ` [RFC v2 02/12] powerpc: Free up four 64K PTE bits in 64K " Ram Pai
2017-06-20 10:51 ` Anshuman Khandual
2017-06-20 23:25 ` Ram Pai
2017-06-21 6:50 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2017-06-21 6:54 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2017-06-21 20:14 ` Ram Pai
2017-06-17 3:52 ` [RFC v2 03/12] powerpc: Implement sys_pkey_alloc and sys_pkey_free system call Ram Pai
2017-06-19 12:18 ` Michael Ellerman
2017-06-20 22:45 ` Ram Pai [this message]
2017-06-17 3:52 ` [RFC v2 04/12] powerpc: store and restore the pkey state across context switches Ram Pai
2017-06-17 3:52 ` [RFC v2 05/12] powerpc: Implementation for sys_mprotect_pkey() system call Ram Pai
2017-06-21 7:16 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2017-06-17 3:52 ` [RFC v2 06/12] powerpc: Program HPTE key protection bits Ram Pai
2017-06-20 8:21 ` Anshuman Khandual
2017-06-20 23:26 ` Ram Pai
2017-06-17 3:52 ` [RFC v2 07/12] powerpc: Macro the mask used for checking DSI exception Ram Pai
2017-06-20 8:14 ` Anshuman Khandual
2017-06-20 23:28 ` Ram Pai
2017-06-21 7:25 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2017-06-21 9:17 ` Ram Pai
2017-06-17 3:52 ` [RFC v2 08/12] powerpc: Handle exceptions caused by violation of pkey protection Ram Pai
2017-06-20 7:24 ` Anshuman Khandual
2017-06-20 23:43 ` Ram Pai
2017-06-21 3:54 ` Anshuman Khandual
2017-06-21 6:26 ` Ram Pai
2017-06-17 3:52 ` [RFC v2 09/12] powerpc: Deliver SEGV signal on pkey violation Ram Pai
2017-06-20 6:54 ` Anshuman Khandual
2017-06-20 23:56 ` Ram Pai
2017-06-21 3:18 ` Anshuman Khandual
2017-06-21 6:10 ` Ram Pai
2017-06-17 3:52 ` [RFC v2 10/12] powerpc: Read AMR only if pkey-violation caused the exception Ram Pai
2017-06-19 11:06 ` Michael Ellerman
2017-06-19 17:59 ` Ram Pai
2017-06-20 6:46 ` Anshuman Khandual
2017-06-20 23:58 ` Ram Pai
2017-06-20 23:56 ` Ram Pai
2017-06-17 3:52 ` [RFC v2 11/12]Documentation: Documentation updates Ram Pai
2017-06-20 6:18 ` Anshuman Khandual
2017-06-21 0:04 ` Ram Pai
2017-06-17 3:52 ` [RFC v2 12/12]selftest: Updated protection key selftest Ram Pai
2017-06-19 11:04 ` Michael Ellerman
2017-06-20 6:26 ` Anshuman Khandual
2017-06-21 0:10 ` Ram Pai
2017-06-20 5:10 ` [RFC v2 00/12] powerpc: Memory Protection Keys Balbir Singh
2017-06-20 6:05 ` Anshuman Khandual
2017-06-20 9:56 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
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=20170620224544.GE17588@ram.oc3035372033.ibm.com \
--to=linuxram@us.ibm.com \
--cc=aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=bsingharora@gmail.com \
--cc=dave.hansen@intel.com \
--cc=hbabu@us.ibm.com \
--cc=khandual@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.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).