All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>
To: Ram Pai <linuxram@us.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
	linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: pkeys: Reserve PKEY_DISABLE_READ
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2018 21:23:35 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87bm6z71yw.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181108201231.GE5481@ram.oc3035372033.ibm.com> (Ram Pai's message of "Thu, 8 Nov 2018 12:12:31 -0800")

* Ram Pai:

> Florian,
>
> 	I can. But I am struggling to understand the requirement. Why is
> 	this needed?  Are we proposing a enhancement to the sys_pkey_alloc(),
> 	to be able to allocate keys that are initialied to disable-read
> 	only?

Yes, I think that would be a natural consequence.

However, my immediate need comes from the fact that the AMR register can
contain a flag combination that is not possible to represent with the
existing PKEY_DISABLE_WRITE and PKEY_DISABLE_ACCESS flags.  User code
could write to AMR directly, so I cannot rule out that certain flag
combinations exist there.

So I came up with this:

int
pkey_get (int key)
{
  if (key < 0 || key > PKEY_MAX)
    {
      __set_errno (EINVAL);
      return -1;
    }
  unsigned int index = pkey_index (key);
  unsigned long int amr = pkey_read ();
  unsigned int bits = (amr >> index) & 3;

  /* Translate from AMR values.  PKEY_AMR_READ standing alone is not
     currently representable.  */
  if (bits & PKEY_AMR_READ)
    return PKEY_DISABLE_ACCESS;
  else if (bits == PKEY_AMR_WRITE)
    return PKEY_DISABLE_WRITE;
  return 0;
}

And this is not ideal.  I would prefer something like this instead:

  switch (bits)
    {
      case PKEY_AMR_READ | PKEY_AMR_WRITE:
        return PKEY_DISABLE_ACCESS;
      case PKEY_AMR_READ:
        return PKEY_DISABLE_READ;
      case PKEY_AMR_WRITE:
        return PKEY_DISABLE_WRITE;
      case 0:
        return 0;
    }

By the way, is the AMR register 64-bit or 32-bit on 32-bit POWER?

Thanks,
Florian

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>
To: Ram Pai <linuxram@us.ibm.com>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
	linux-api@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: pkeys: Reserve PKEY_DISABLE_READ
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2018 21:23:35 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87bm6z71yw.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181108201231.GE5481@ram.oc3035372033.ibm.com> (Ram Pai's message of "Thu, 8 Nov 2018 12:12:31 -0800")

* Ram Pai:

> Florian,
>
> 	I can. But I am struggling to understand the requirement. Why is
> 	this needed?  Are we proposing a enhancement to the sys_pkey_alloc(),
> 	to be able to allocate keys that are initialied to disable-read
> 	only?

Yes, I think that would be a natural consequence.

However, my immediate need comes from the fact that the AMR register can
contain a flag combination that is not possible to represent with the
existing PKEY_DISABLE_WRITE and PKEY_DISABLE_ACCESS flags.  User code
could write to AMR directly, so I cannot rule out that certain flag
combinations exist there.

So I came up with this:

int
pkey_get (int key)
{
  if (key < 0 || key > PKEY_MAX)
    {
      __set_errno (EINVAL);
      return -1;
    }
  unsigned int index = pkey_index (key);
  unsigned long int amr = pkey_read ();
  unsigned int bits = (amr >> index) & 3;

  /* Translate from AMR values.  PKEY_AMR_READ standing alone is not
     currently representable.  */
  if (bits & PKEY_AMR_READ)
    return PKEY_DISABLE_ACCESS;
  else if (bits == PKEY_AMR_WRITE)
    return PKEY_DISABLE_WRITE;
  return 0;
}

And this is not ideal.  I would prefer something like this instead:

  switch (bits)
    {
      case PKEY_AMR_READ | PKEY_AMR_WRITE:
        return PKEY_DISABLE_ACCESS;
      case PKEY_AMR_READ:
        return PKEY_DISABLE_READ;
      case PKEY_AMR_WRITE:
        return PKEY_DISABLE_WRITE;
      case 0:
        return 0;
    }

By the way, is the AMR register 64-bit or 32-bit on 32-bit POWER?

Thanks,
Florian

  reply	other threads:[~2018-11-08 20:23 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 42+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-11-08 12:05 pkeys: Reserve PKEY_DISABLE_READ Florian Weimer
2018-11-08 14:57 ` Dave Hansen
2018-11-08 15:01   ` Florian Weimer
2018-11-08 17:14     ` Dave Hansen
2018-11-08 17:37       ` Florian Weimer
2018-11-08 20:12         ` Ram Pai
2018-11-08 20:12           ` Ram Pai
2018-11-08 20:23           ` Florian Weimer [this message]
2018-11-08 20:23             ` Florian Weimer
2018-11-09 18:09             ` Ram Pai
2018-11-09 18:09               ` Ram Pai
2018-11-12 12:00               ` Florian Weimer
2018-11-12 12:00                 ` Florian Weimer
2018-11-27 10:23                 ` Ram Pai
2018-11-27 10:23                   ` Ram Pai
2018-11-27 11:57                   ` Florian Weimer
2018-11-27 11:57                     ` Florian Weimer
2018-11-27 15:31                     ` Dave Hansen
2018-11-27 15:31                       ` Dave Hansen
2018-11-29 11:37                       ` Florian Weimer
2018-11-29 11:37                         ` Florian Weimer
2018-12-03  4:02                         ` Ram Pai
2018-12-03  4:02                           ` Ram Pai
2018-12-03 15:52                           ` Florian Weimer
2018-12-03 15:52                             ` Florian Weimer
2018-12-04  6:23                             ` Ram Pai
2018-12-04  6:23                               ` Ram Pai
2018-12-05 13:00                               ` Florian Weimer
2018-12-05 13:00                                 ` Florian Weimer
2018-12-05 20:23                                 ` Ram Pai
2018-12-05 20:23                                   ` Ram Pai
2018-12-05 16:21                           ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-12-05 16:21                             ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-12-05 20:36                             ` Ram Pai
2018-12-05 20:36                               ` Ram Pai
2018-11-08 20:08       ` Ram Pai
2018-11-08 20:11         ` Dave Hansen
2018-11-08 20:14         ` Florian Weimer
2018-11-08 19:22 ` Ram Pai
2018-11-08 19:22   ` Ram Pai
2018-11-12 10:29   ` Florian Weimer
2018-11-12 10:29     ` Florian Weimer

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=87bm6z71yw.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com \
    --to=fweimer@redhat.com \
    --cc=dave.hansen@intel.com \
    --cc=linux-api@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
    --cc=linuxram@us.ibm.com \
    /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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.