On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 07:07:48AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 07/13/2017 01:03 AM, Ram Pai wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 11:13:56AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> >> On 07/05/2017 02:22 PM, Ram Pai wrote:
> >>> +#ifdef CONFIG_PPC64_MEMORY_PROTECTION_KEYS
> >>> +void arch_show_smap(struct seq_file *m, struct vm_area_struct *vma)
> >>> +{
> >>> + seq_printf(m, "ProtectionKey: %8u\n", vma_pkey(vma));
> >>> +}
> >>> +#endif /* CONFIG_PPC64_MEMORY_PROTECTION_KEYS */
> >>
> >> This seems like kinda silly unnecessary duplication. Could we just put
> >> this in the fs/proc/ code and #ifdef it on ARCH_HAS_PKEYS?
> >
> > Well x86 predicates it based on availability of X86_FEATURE_OSPKE.
> >
> > powerpc doesn't need that check or any similar check. So trying to
> > generalize the code does not save much IMHO.
>
> I know all your hardware doesn't support it. :)
Wow! you bring a good point which I had not considered yet. I need some
runtime checks for RPT.
But regardless, my above statement is still partially true. x86
predicates it based on availability of X86_FEATURE_OSPKE, and powerpc
should predicate it based on HPT. So we have our own
customized checks. Hence a unified function won't suffice.
>
> So, for instance, if you are running on a new POWER9 with radix page
> tables, you will just always output "ProtectionKey: 0" in every VMA,
> regardless?
>
> > maybe have a seperate inline function that does
> > seq_printf(m, "ProtectionKey: %8u\n", vma_pkey(vma));
> > and is called from x86 and powerpc's arch_show_smap()?
> > At least will keep the string format captured in
> > one single place.
>
> Now that we have two architectures, is there a strong reason we can't
> just have an arch_pkeys_enabled(), and stick the seq_printf() back in
> generic code?
correct. that looks like the correct approach. Was trying to avoid
touching arch neutral code. But this approach will force me
do so. Will do.
--
Ram Pai
