Re: pkeys: Reserve PKEY_DISABLE_READ

* 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

On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 09:23:35PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:

* Ram Pai:

quoted

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))

    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;
    }

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;
     }

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.

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

It is 64-bit.

RP