On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 07:17:13PM -0300, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:
>
> Ram Pai <linuxram@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > --- a/arch/powerpc/mm/pkeys.c
> > +++ b/arch/powerpc/mm/pkeys.c
> > @@ -97,3 +97,60 @@ int __arch_set_user_pkey_access(struct task_struct *tsk, int pkey,
> > init_iamr(pkey, new_iamr_bits);
> > return 0;
> > }
> > +
> > +static inline bool pkey_allows_readwrite(int pkey)
> > +{
> > + int pkey_shift = pkeyshift(pkey);
> > +
> > + if (!(read_uamor() & (0x3UL << pkey_shift)))
> > + return true;
> > +
> > + return !(read_amr() & ((AMR_RD_BIT|AMR_WR_BIT) << pkey_shift));
> > +}
> > +
> > +int __execute_only_pkey(struct mm_struct *mm)
> > +{
> > + bool need_to_set_mm_pkey = false;
> > + int execute_only_pkey = mm->context.execute_only_pkey;
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + /* Do we need to assign a pkey for mm's execute-only maps? */
> > + if (execute_only_pkey == -1) {
> > + /* Go allocate one to use, which might fail */
> > + execute_only_pkey = mm_pkey_alloc(mm);
> > + if (execute_only_pkey < 0)
> > + return -1;
> > + need_to_set_mm_pkey = true;
> > + }
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * We do not want to go through the relatively costly
> > + * dance to set AMR if we do not need to. Check it
> > + * first and assume that if the execute-only pkey is
> > + * readwrite-disabled than we do not have to set it
> > + * ourselves.
> > + */
> > + if (!need_to_set_mm_pkey &&
> > + !pkey_allows_readwrite(execute_only_pkey))
^^^^^
Here uamor and amr is read once each.
> > + return execute_only_pkey;
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * Set up AMR so that it denies access for everything
> > + * other than execution.
> > + */
> > + ret = __arch_set_user_pkey_access(current, execute_only_pkey,
> > + (PKEY_DISABLE_ACCESS | PKEY_DISABLE_WRITE));
^^^^^^^
here amr and iamr are written once each if the
the function returns successfully.
> > + /*
> > + * If the AMR-set operation failed somehow, just return
> > + * 0 and effectively disable execute-only support.
> > + */
> > + if (ret) {
> > + mm_set_pkey_free(mm, execute_only_pkey);
^^^
here only if __arch_set_user_pkey_access() fails
amr and iamr and uamor will be written once each.
> > + return -1;
> > + }
> > +
> > + /* We got one, store it and use it from here on out */
> > + if (need_to_set_mm_pkey)
> > + mm->context.execute_only_pkey = execute_only_pkey;
> > + return execute_only_pkey;
> > +}
>
> If you follow the code flow in __execute_only_pkey, the AMR and UAMOR
> are read 3 times in total, and AMR is written twice. IAMR is read and
> written twice. Since they are SPRs and access to them is slow (or isn't
> it?), is it worth it to read them once in __execute_only_pkey and pass
> down their values to the callees, and then write them once at the end of
> the function?
If my calculations are right:
uamor may be read once and may be written once.
amr may be read once and is written once.
iamr is written once.
So not that bad, i think.
RP
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
