On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 6:19 PM Ram Pai <linuxram@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > However the fundamental issue is still the same, as mentioned in the > other thread. > "Should the permissions on a key be allowed to be changed, if the key > is not allocated in the first place?". > my answer is NO. Lets debate :) As a preface, here's my two-minute attempt to understand POWER's behavior: there are two registers, AMR and UAMR. AMR contains both kernel-relevant state and user-relevant state. UAMR specifies which bits of AMR are available for user code to directly access. AMR bits outside UAMR are read as zero and are unaffected by writes. I'm assuming that the kernel reserves some subset of AMR bits in advance to correspond to allocatable pkeys. Here's my question: given that disallowed AMR bits are read-as-zero, there can always be a thread that is in the middle of a sequence like: unsigned long old = amr; amr |= whatever; ... <- thread is here amr = old; Now another thread calls pkey_alloc(), so UAMR is asynchronously changed, and the thread will write zero to the relevant AMR bits. If I understand correctly, this means that the decision to mask off unallocated keys via UAMR effectively forces the initial value of newly-allocated keys in other threads in the allocating process to be zero, whatever zero means. (I didn't get far enough in the POWER docs to figure out what zero means.) So I don't think you're doing anyone any favors by making UAMR dynamic. IOW both x86 and POWER screwed up the ISA.
