On 07/17/2018 08:58 AM, Ram Pai wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 07:47:02AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
>> On 06/13/2018 05:44 PM, Ram Pai wrote:
>>> If the flag is 0, no bits will be set. Hence we cant expect
>>> the resulting bitmap to have a higher value than what it
>>> was earlier
>> ...
>>> if (flags)
>>> - pkey_assert(read_pkey_reg() > orig_pkey_reg);
>>> + pkey_assert(read_pkey_reg() >= orig_pkey_reg);
>>> dprintf1("END<---%s(%d, 0x%x)\n", __func__,
>>> pkey, flags);
>>> }
>> This is the kind of thing where I'd love to hear the motivation and
>> background. This "disable a key that was already disabled" operation
>> obviously doesn't happen today. What motivated you to change it now?
> On powerpc, hardware supports READ_DISABLE and WRITE_DISABLE.
> ACCESS_DISABLE is basically READ_DISABLE|WRITE_DISABLE on powerpc.
>
> If access disable is called on a key followed by a write disable, the
> second operation becomes a nop. In such cases,
> read_pkey_reg() == orig_pkey_reg
>
> Hence the code above is modified to
> pkey_assert(read_pkey_reg() >= orig_pkey_reg);
Makes sense. Do we have a comment for that now?
--
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
