On 02/23/2014 05:27 AM, Qiaowei Ren wrote:
> +static bool allocate_bt(unsigned long bd_entry)
> +{
> + unsigned long bt_size = 1UL << (MPX_L2_BITS+MPX_L2_SHIFT);
> + unsigned long bt_addr, old_val = 0;
> +
> + bt_addr = sys_mmap_pgoff(0, bt_size, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE,
> + MAP_ANONYMOUS | MAP_PRIVATE | MAP_POPULATE, -1, 0);
> + if (bt_addr == -1) {
> + pr_err("L2 Node Allocation Failed at L1 addr %lx\n",
> + bd_entry);
> + return false;
> + }
> + bt_addr = (bt_addr & MPX_L2_NODE_ADDR_MASK) | 0x01;
> +
> + user_atomic_cmpxchg_inatomic(&old_val,
> + (long __user *)bd_entry, 0, bt_addr);
> + if (old_val)
> + vm_munmap(bt_addr & MPX_L2_NODE_ADDR_MASK, bt_size);
> +
> + return true;
> +}
> +
> +bool do_mpx_bt_fault(struct xsave_struct *xsave_buf)
> +{
> + unsigned long status;
> + unsigned long bd_entry, bd_base;
> + unsigned long bd_size = 1UL << (MPX_L1_BITS+MPX_L1_SHIFT);
> +
> + bd_base = xsave_buf->bndcsr.cfg_reg_u & MPX_BNDCFG_ADDR_MASK;
> + status = xsave_buf->bndcsr.status_reg;
> +
> + bd_entry = status & MPX_BNDSTA_ADDR_MASK;
> + if ((bd_entry >= bd_base) && (bd_entry < bd_base + bd_size))
> + return allocate_bt(bd_entry);
> +
> + return false;
> +}
Can you talk a little bit about what the design is here? Why does the
kernel have to do the allocation of the virtual address space? Does it
really need to MAP_POPULATE? bt_size looks like 4MB, and that's an
awful lot of memory to eat up at once. Shouldn't we just let the kernel
demand-fault this like everything else?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
