[lkml]   [2018]   [Feb]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v11 00/10] Application Data Integrity feature introduced by SPARC M7
On 02/01/2018 07:29 PM, wrote:
> Khalid Aziz <> writes:
>> V11 changes:
>> This series is same as v10 and was simply rebased on 4.15 kernel. Can
>> mm maintainers please review patches 2, 7, 8 and 9 which are arch
>> independent, and include/linux/mm.h and mm/ksm.c changes in patch 10
>> and ack these if everything looks good?
> I am a bit puzzled how this differs from the pkey's that other
> architectures are implementing to achieve a similar result.
> I am a bit mystified why you don't store the tag in a vma
> instead of inventing a new way to store data on page out.

Hello Eric,

As Steven pointed out, sparc sets tags per cacheline unlike pkey. This
results in much finer granularity for tags that pkey and hence requires
larger tag storage than what we can do in a vma.

> Can you please use force_sig_fault to send these signals instead
> of force_sig_info. Emperically I have found that it is very
> error prone to generate siginfo's by hand, especially on code
> paths where several different si_codes may apply. So it helps
> to go through a helper function to ensure the fiddly bits are
> all correct. AKA the unused bits all need to be set to zero before
> struct siginfo is copied to userspace.

What you say makes sense. I followed the same code as other fault
handlers for sparc. I could change just the fault handlers for ADI
related faults. Would it make more sense to change all the fault
handlers in a separate patch and keep the code in
arch/sparc/kernel/traps_64.c consistent? Dave M, do you have a preference?


 \ /
  Last update: 2018-02-02 16:00    [W:0.163 / U:2.560 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site