| Message ID | 2dcbb08ed8804e02538a73ee05a4283c54180e36.1536356108.git.alison.schofield@intel.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Multi-Key Total Memory Encryption API (MKTME) | expand |
On Fri, 2018-09-07 at 15:34 -0700, Alison Schofield wrote: > Today mprotect is implemented to support legacy mprotect behavior > plus an extension for memory protection keys. Make it more generic > so that it can support additional extensions in the future. > > This is done is preparation for adding a new system call for memory > encyption keys. The intent is that the new encrypted mprotect will be > another extension to legacy mprotect. > > Signed-off-by: Alison Schofield <alison.schofield@intel.com> > --- > mm/mprotect.c | 10 ++++++---- > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/mm/mprotect.c b/mm/mprotect.c > index 68dc476310c0..56e64ef7931e 100644 > --- a/mm/mprotect.c > +++ b/mm/mprotect.c > @@ -35,6 +35,8 @@ > > #include "internal.h" > > +#define NO_PKEY -1 This commit does not make anything more generic but it does take away a magic number. The code change is senseful. The commit message is nonsense. PS. Please use @linux.intel.com for LKML. /Jarkko
On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 01:12:31PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Fri, 2018-09-07 at 15:34 -0700, Alison Schofield wrote: > > Today mprotect is implemented to support legacy mprotect behavior > > plus an extension for memory protection keys. Make it more generic > > so that it can support additional extensions in the future. > > > > This is done is preparation for adding a new system call for memory > > encyption keys. The intent is that the new encrypted mprotect will be > > another extension to legacy mprotect. > > > > Signed-off-by: Alison Schofield <alison.schofield@intel.com> > > --- > > mm/mprotect.c | 10 ++++++---- > > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/mm/mprotect.c b/mm/mprotect.c > > index 68dc476310c0..56e64ef7931e 100644 > > --- a/mm/mprotect.c > > +++ b/mm/mprotect.c > > @@ -35,6 +35,8 @@ > > > > #include "internal.h" > > > > +#define NO_PKEY -1 > > This commit does not make anything more generic but it does take > away a magic number. The code change is senseful. The commit > message is nonsense. do_mprotect_ext() is intended to be the generic replacement for do_mprotect_pkey() which was added for protection keys. > > PS. Please use @linux.intel.com for LKML. Is this a request to use your @linux.intel.com email address when I'm posting to LKML's? > > /Jarkko
diff --git a/mm/mprotect.c b/mm/mprotect.c index 68dc476310c0..56e64ef7931e 100644 --- a/mm/mprotect.c +++ b/mm/mprotect.c @@ -35,6 +35,8 @@ #include "internal.h" +#define NO_PKEY -1 + static unsigned long change_pte_range(struct vm_area_struct *vma, pmd_t *pmd, unsigned long addr, unsigned long end, pgprot_t newprot, int dirty_accountable, int prot_numa) @@ -402,9 +404,9 @@ mprotect_fixup(struct vm_area_struct *vma, struct vm_area_struct **pprev, } /* - * pkey==-1 when doing a legacy mprotect() + * When pkey==NO_PKEY we get legacy mprotect behavior here. */ -static int do_mprotect_pkey(unsigned long start, size_t len, +static int do_mprotect_ext(unsigned long start, size_t len, unsigned long prot, int pkey) { unsigned long nstart, end, tmp, reqprot; @@ -528,7 +530,7 @@ static int do_mprotect_pkey(unsigned long start, size_t len, SYSCALL_DEFINE3(mprotect, unsigned long, start, size_t, len, unsigned long, prot) { - return do_mprotect_pkey(start, len, prot, -1); + return do_mprotect_ext(start, len, prot, NO_PKEY); } #ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_PKEYS @@ -536,7 +538,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE3(mprotect, unsigned long, start, size_t, len, SYSCALL_DEFINE4(pkey_mprotect, unsigned long, start, size_t, len, unsigned long, prot, int, pkey) { - return do_mprotect_pkey(start, len, prot, pkey); + return do_mprotect_ext(start, len, prot, pkey); } SYSCALL_DEFINE2(pkey_alloc, unsigned long, flags, unsigned long, init_val)
Today mprotect is implemented to support legacy mprotect behavior plus an extension for memory protection keys. Make it more generic so that it can support additional extensions in the future. This is done is preparation for adding a new system call for memory encyption keys. The intent is that the new encrypted mprotect will be another extension to legacy mprotect. Signed-off-by: Alison Schofield <alison.schofield@intel.com> --- mm/mprotect.c | 10 ++++++---- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)