From: Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>
To: Ram Pai <linuxram@us.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
Subject: Re: pkeys: Reserve PKEY_DISABLE_READ
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2018 13:00:19 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87efbqqze4.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181109180947.GF5481@ram.oc3035372033.ibm.com> (Ram Pai's message of "Fri, 9 Nov 2018 10:09:47 -0800")
* Ram Pai:
> On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 09:23:35PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> * 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)
>
> this should be
> if (bits & (PKEY_AMR_READ|PKEY_AMR_WRITE))
This would return zero for PKEY_AMR_READ alone.
>> return PKEY_DISABLE_ACCESS;
>
>
>> else if (bits == PKEY_AMR_WRITE)
>> return PKEY_DISABLE_WRITE;
>> return 0;
>> }
It's hard to tell whether PKEY_DISABLE_ACCESS is better in this case.
Which is why I want PKEY_DISABLE_READ.
>> 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;
>> }
>
> yes.
> and on x86 it will be something like:
> switch (bits)
> {
> case PKEY_PKRU_ACCESS :
> return PKEY_DISABLE_ACCESS;
> case PKEY_AMR_WRITE:
> return PKEY_DISABLE_WRITE;
> case 0:
> return 0;
> }
x86 returns the PKRU bits directly, including the nonsensical case
(PKEY_DISABLE_ACCESS | PKEY_DISABLE_WRITE).
> But for this to work, why do you need to enhance the sys_pkey_alloc()
> interface? Not that I am against it. Trying to understand if the
> enhancement is really needed.
sys_pkey_alloc performs an implicit pkey_set for the newly allocated key
(that is, it updates the PKRU/AMR register). It makes sense to match
the behavior of the userspace implementation.
Thanks,
Florian
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-11-12 12:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <877ehnbwqy.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com>
2018-11-08 19:22 ` pkeys: Reserve PKEY_DISABLE_READ Ram Pai
2018-11-12 10:29 ` Florian Weimer
[not found] ` <2d62c9e2-375b-2791-32ce-fdaa7e7664fd@intel.com>
[not found] ` <87bm6zaa04.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com>
[not found] ` <6f9c65fb-ea7e-8217-a4cc-f93e766ed9bb@intel.com>
[not found] ` <87k1ln8o7u.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com>
2018-11-08 20:12 ` Ram Pai
2018-11-08 20:23 ` Florian Weimer
2018-11-09 18:09 ` Ram Pai
2018-11-12 12:00 ` Florian Weimer [this message]
2018-11-27 10:23 ` Ram Pai
2018-11-27 11:57 ` Florian Weimer
2018-11-27 15:31 ` Dave Hansen
2018-11-29 11:37 ` Florian Weimer
2018-12-03 4:02 ` Ram Pai
2018-12-03 15:52 ` Florian Weimer
2018-12-04 6:23 ` Ram Pai
2018-12-05 13:00 ` Florian Weimer
2018-12-05 20:23 ` Ram Pai
2018-12-05 16:21 ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-12-05 20:36 ` Ram Pai
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=87efbqqze4.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 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).