Re: pkeys: Reserve PKEY_DISABLE_READ
From: Ram Pai <hidden>
Date: 2018-11-09 18:10:03
Also in:
linux-api, linux-mm
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