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 kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDA0AC433F5 for ; Wed, 9 Feb 2022 03:23:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id D8A406B0071; Tue, 8 Feb 2022 22:23:51 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id D37DD6B0074; Tue, 8 Feb 2022 22:23:51 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id C4D606B0075; Tue, 8 Feb 2022 22:23:51 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0107.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.107]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B96966B0071 for ; Tue, 8 Feb 2022 22:23:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin25.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay03.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6966B8249980 for ; Wed, 9 Feb 2022 03:23:51 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 79121797062.25.3CB02F1 Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com [217.140.110.172]) by imf14.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4BE9100006 for ; Wed, 9 Feb 2022 03:23:50 +0000 (UTC) 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 B0CC2ED1; Tue, 8 Feb 2022 19:23:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.163.46.128] (unknown [10.163.46.128]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 512343F73B; Tue, 8 Feb 2022 19:23:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [RFC V1 02/31] mm/mmap: Clarify protection_map[] indices To: Firo Yang Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, hch@infradead.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org References: <1643029028-12710-1-git-send-email-anshuman.khandual@arm.com> <1643029028-12710-3-git-send-email-anshuman.khandual@arm.com> <20220205091048.g3fk4eaw7p7itgil@gmail.com> From: Anshuman Khandual Message-ID: <83958cb9-cca7-1e48-f0c8-0d101dbeebc8@arm.com> Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2022 08:53:44 +0530 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20220205091048.g3fk4eaw7p7itgil@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Authentication-Results: imf14.hostedemail.com; dkim=none; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=arm.com; spf=pass (imf14.hostedemail.com: domain of anshuman.khandual@arm.com designates 217.140.110.172 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=anshuman.khandual@arm.com X-Rspam-User: X-Rspamd-Server: rspam02 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: C4BE9100006 X-Stat-Signature: izo7qrfm31imnk41mn9bussfpgczwcrm X-HE-Tag: 1644377030-998947 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On 2/5/22 2:40 PM, Firo Yang wrote: > The 01/24/2022 18:26, Anshuman Khandual wrote: >> protection_map[] maps vm_flags access combinations into page protection >> value as defined by the platform via __PXXX and __SXXX macros. The array >> indices in protection_map[], represents vm_flags access combinations but >> it's not very intuitive to derive. This makes it clear and explicit. >> >> Cc: Andrew Morton >> Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org >> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >> Signed-off-by: Anshuman Khandual >> --- >> mm/mmap.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++-- >> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/mm/mmap.c b/mm/mmap.c >> index 1e8fdb0b51ed..254d716220df 100644 >> --- a/mm/mmap.c >> +++ b/mm/mmap.c >> @@ -102,8 +102,22 @@ static void unmap_region(struct mm_struct *mm, >> * x: (yes) yes >> */ >> pgprot_t protection_map[16] __ro_after_init = { >> - __P000, __P001, __P010, __P011, __P100, __P101, __P110, __P111, >> - __S000, __S001, __S010, __S011, __S100, __S101, __S110, __S111 >> + [VM_NONE] = __P000, >> + [VM_READ] = __P001, >> + [VM_WRITE] = __P010, >> + [VM_READ|VM_WRITE] = __P011, >> + [VM_EXEC] = __P100, >> + [VM_EXEC|VM_READ] = __P101, >> + [VM_EXEC|VM_WRITE] = __P110, >> + [VM_EXEC|VM_READ|VM_WRITE] = __P111, >> + [VM_SHARED] = __S000, >> + [VM_SHARED|VM_READ] = __S001, >> + [VM_SHARED|VM_WRITE] = __S010, >> + [VM_SHARED|VM_READ|VM_WRITE] = __S011, >> + [VM_SHARED|VM_EXEC] = __S100, >> + [VM_SHARED|VM_READ|VM_EXEC] = __S101, >> + [VM_SHARED|VM_WRITE|VM_EXEC] = __S110, >> + [VM_SHARED|VM_READ|VM_WRITE|VM_EXEC] = __S111 > > Just a little bit picky:) > Would you mind rearranging vm_flags access commbination in the order as > the access bits appear in __SXXX or __PXXX? For example, change the following: > > [VM_SHARED|VM_READ|VM_WRITE|VM_EXEC] = __S111 > to > [VM_SHARED | VM_EXEC | VM_WRITE | VM_READ] = __S111 > > I think it's would be more clear for looking. So the vm_flags combination set here (and like in the platforms) should be like the following .. [VM_NONE] [VM_READ] [VM_WRITE] [VM_WRITE | VM_READ] [VM_EXEC] [VM_EXEC|VM_READ] [VM_EXEC|VM_WRITE] [VM_EXEC|VM_WRITE | VM_READ] [VM_SHARED] [VM_SHARED|VM_READ] [VM_SHARED|VM_WRITE] [VM_SHARED|VM_WRITE | VM_READ] [VM_SHARED|VM_EXEC] [VM_SHARED|VM_EXEC | VM_READ] [VM_SHARED|VM_EXEC | VM_WRITE] [VM_SHARED|VM_EXEC | VM_WRITE | VM_READ] Implying the relative position for these flags among each other. [VM_SHARED] [VM_EXEC] [VM_WRITE] [VM_WRITE] This makes sense, will change the series accordingly. - Anshuman