Re: [PATCH v3 03/13] mm/debug_vm_pgtable/ppc64: Avoid setting top bits in radom value

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 9/1/20 1:02 PM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:


On 09/01/2020 11:51 AM, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
On 9/1/20 8:45 AM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:


On 08/27/2020 01:34 PM, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
ppc64 use bit 62 to indicate a pte entry (_PAGE_PTE). Avoid setting that bit in
random value.

Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
   mm/debug_vm_pgtable.c | 13 ++++++++++---
   1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/mm/debug_vm_pgtable.c b/mm/debug_vm_pgtable.c
index 086309fb9b6f..bbf9df0e64c6 100644
--- a/mm/debug_vm_pgtable.c
+++ b/mm/debug_vm_pgtable.c
@@ -44,10 +44,17 @@
    * entry type. But these bits might affect the ability to clear entries with
    * pxx_clear() because of how dynamic page table folding works on s390. So
    * while loading up the entries do not change the lower 4 bits. It does not
- * have affect any other platform.
+ * have affect any other platform. Also avoid the 62nd bit on ppc64 that is
+ * used to mark a pte entry.
    */
-#define S390_MASK_BITS    4
-#define RANDOM_ORVALUE    GENMASK(BITS_PER_LONG - 1, S390_MASK_BITS)
+#define S390_SKIP_MASK        GENMASK(3, 0)
+#ifdef CONFIG_PPC_BOOK3S_64
+#define PPC64_SKIP_MASK        GENMASK(62, 62)
+#else
+#define PPC64_SKIP_MASK        0x0
+#endif

Please drop the #ifdef CONFIG_PPC_BOOK3S_64 here. We already accommodate skip
bits for a s390 platform requirement and can also do so for ppc64 as well. As
mentioned before, please avoid adding any platform specific constructs in the
test.



that is needed so that it can be built on 32 bit architectures.I did face build errors with arch-linux

Could not (#if __BITS_PER_LONG == 32) be used instead or something like
that. But should be a generic conditional check identifying 32 bit arch
not anything platform specific.


that _PAGE_PTE bit is pretty much specific to PPC BOOK3S_64. Not sure why other architectures need to bothered about ignoring bit 62.

-aneesh



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel]     [Kernel Newbies]     [x86 Platform Driver]     [Netdev]     [Linux Wireless]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux Filesystems]     [Yosemite Discussion]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux