On 07/05/2017 02:22 PM, Ram Pai wrote: > Add documentation updates that capture PowerPC specific changes. > > Signed-off-by: Ram Pai <linuxram@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > Documentation/vm/protection-keys.txt | 85 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------- > 1 files changed, 65 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/vm/protection-keys.txt b/Documentation/vm/protection-keys.txt > index b643045..d50b6ab 100644 > --- a/Documentation/vm/protection-keys.txt > +++ b/Documentation/vm/protection-keys.txt > @@ -1,21 +1,46 @@ > -Memory Protection Keys for Userspace (PKU aka PKEYs) is a CPU feature > -which will be found on future Intel CPUs. > +Memory Protection Keys for Userspace (PKU aka PKEYs) is a CPU feature found in > +new generation of intel CPUs and on PowerPC 7 and higher CPUs. Please try not to change the wording here. I really did mean to literally put "future Intel CPUs." Also, you broke my nice wrapping. :) I'm also thinking that this needs to be more generic. The ppc _CPU_ feature is *NOT* for userspace-only, right? > Memory Protection Keys provides a mechanism for enforcing page-based > -protections, but without requiring modification of the page tables > -when an application changes protection domains. It works by > -dedicating 4 previously ignored bits in each page table entry to a > -"protection key", giving 16 possible keys. > - > -There is also a new user-accessible register (PKRU) with two separate > -bits (Access Disable and Write Disable) for each key. Being a CPU > -register, PKRU is inherently thread-local, potentially giving each > -thread a different set of protections from every other thread. > - > -There are two new instructions (RDPKRU/WRPKRU) for reading and writing > -to the new register. The feature is only available in 64-bit mode, > -even though there is theoretically space in the PAE PTEs. These > -permissions are enforced on data access only and have no effect on > +protections, but without requiring modification of the page tables when an > +application changes protection domains. > + > + > +On Intel: > + > + It works by dedicating 4 previously ignored bits in each page table > + entry to a "protection key", giving 16 possible keys. > + > + There is also a new user-accessible register (PKRU) with two separate > + bits (Access Disable and Write Disable) for each key. Being a CPU > + register, PKRU is inherently thread-local, potentially giving each > + thread a different set of protections from every other thread. > + > + There are two new instructions (RDPKRU/WRPKRU) for reading and writing > + to the new register. The feature is only available in 64-bit mode, > + even though there is theoretically space in the PAE PTEs. These > + permissions are enforced on data access only and have no effect on > + instruction fetches. > + > + > +On PowerPC: > + > + It works by dedicating 5 page table entry bits to a "protection key", > + giving 32 possible keys. > + > + There is a user-accessible register (AMR) with two separate bits; > + Access Disable and Write Disable, for each key. Being a CPU > + register, AMR is inherently thread-local, potentially giving each > + thread a different set of protections from every other thread. NOTE: > + Disabling read permission does not disable write and vice-versa. > + > + The feature is available on 64-bit HPTE mode only. > + 'mtspr 0xd, mem' reads the AMR register > + 'mfspr mem, 0xd' writes into the AMR register. The whole "being a CPU register" bits seem pretty common. Should it be in the leading paragraph that is shared? > +Permissions are enforced on data access only and have no effect on > instruction fetches. Shouldn't we mention the ppc support for execute-disable here too? Also, *does* this apply to ppc? You have it both in this common area and in the x86 portion. > =========================== Syscalls =========================== > @@ -28,9 +53,9 @@ There are 3 system calls which directly interact with pkeys: > unsigned long prot, int pkey); > > Before a pkey can be used, it must first be allocated with > -pkey_alloc(). An application calls the WRPKRU instruction > +pkey_alloc(). An application calls the WRPKRU/AMR instruction > directly in order to change access permissions to memory covered > -with a key. In this example WRPKRU is wrapped by a C function > +with a key. In this example WRPKRU/AMR is wrapped by a C function > called pkey_set(). > > int real_prot = PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE; > @@ -52,11 +77,11 @@ is no longer in use: > munmap(ptr, PAGE_SIZE); > pkey_free(pkey); > > -(Note: pkey_set() is a wrapper for the RDPKRU and WRPKRU instructions. > +(Note: pkey_set() is a wrapper for the RDPKRU,WRPKRU or AMR instructions. > An example implementation can be found in > tools/testing/selftests/x86/protection_keys.c) > > -=========================== Behavior =========================== > +=========================== Behavior ================================= > > The kernel attempts to make protection keys consistent with the > behavior of a plain mprotect(). For instance if you do this: > @@ -83,3 +108,23 @@ with a read(): > The kernel will send a SIGSEGV in both cases, but si_code will be set > to SEGV_PKERR when violating protection keys versus SEGV_ACCERR when > the plain mprotect() permissions are violated. > + > + > +==================================================================== > + Semantic differences > + > +The following semantic differences exist between x86 and power. > + > +a) powerpc allows creation of a key with execute-disabled. The following > + is allowed on powerpc. > + pkey = pkey_alloc(0, PKEY_DISABLE_WRITE | PKEY_DISABLE_ACCESS | > + PKEY_DISABLE_EXECUTE); > + x86 disallows PKEY_DISABLE_EXECUTE during key creation. It isn't that powerpc supports *creation* of the key. It doesn't support setting PKEY_DISABLE_EXECUTE, period, which implies that you can't set it at pkey_alloc(). That's a pretty important distinction, IMNHO. > +b) changing the permission bits of a key from a signal handler does not > + persist on x86. The PKRU specific fpregs entry needs to be modified > + for it to persist. On powerpc the permission bits of the key can be > + modified by programming the AMR register from the signal handler. > + The changes persists across signal boundaries. ^"changes persist", not "persists". -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kselftest" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
