[lkml]   [2018]   [Feb]   [7]   [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
Khalid Aziz <> writes:

> 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.

*Nod* I am a bit mystified where you keep the information in memory.
I would think the tags would need to be stored per cacheline or per
tlb entry, in some kind of cache that could overflow. So I would be
surprised if swapping is the only time this information needs stored
in memory. Which makes me wonder if you have the proper data

I would think an array per vma or something in the page tables would
tend to make sense.

But perhaps I am missing something.

>> 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?

It is my intention post -rc1 to start sending out patches to get the
rest of not just sparc but all of the architectures using the new
helpers. I have the code I just ran out of time befor the merge
window opened to ensure everything had a good thorough review.

So if you can handle the your new changes I expect I will handle the


 \ /
  Last update: 2018-02-07 08:39    [W:0.043 / U:2.152 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site