On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 02:15:36PM +0800, Tong Tiangen wrote:
> Considering all your suggestions, The final logic should be:
>
> +#define pte_user(pte) (!!(pte_val(pte) & PTE_USER))
>
> +#define pmd_user(pmd) pte_user(pmd_pte(pmd))
> +#define pmd_user_exec(pmd) pte_user_exec(pmd_pte(pmd))
>
> +#define pud_user(pud) pte_user(pud_pte(pud))
>
> +static inline bool pte_user_accessible_page(pte_t pte)
> +{
> + return pte_present(pte) && (pte_user(pte)|| pte_user_exec(pte));
> +}
This is fine.
> +static inline bool pmd_user_accessible_page(pmd_t pmd)
> +{
> + return pmd_present(pmd) && (pmd_user(pmd)|| pmd_user_exec(pmd));
> +}
That's fine as well assuming that the function is only called on the
set_pmd_at() path where we know that the pmd would be a block mapping
(huge page). I think that's the case from a quick look at the current
x86 implementation.
> +static inline bool pud_user_accessible_page(pud_t pud)
> +{
> + return pud_present(pud) && pud_user(pud);
> +}
Same here.
--
Catalin
