linux-kernel - Re: [RFC v5 15/38] powerpc: helper function to read,write AMR,IAMR,UAMOR registers

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 13 Jul 2017 16:29:16 -0700
From:   Ram Pai <linuxram@...ibm.com>
To:     Balbir Singh <bsingharora@...il.com>
Cc:     "open list:LINUX FOR POWERPC (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" 
        <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        "maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <x86@...nel.org>,
        "open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Anshuman Khandual <khandual@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Aneesh Kumar KV <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Haren Myneni/Beaverton/IBM <hbabu@...ibm.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        "akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v5 15/38] powerpc: helper function to read,write
 AMR,IAMR,UAMOR registers

On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 07:49:05PM +1000, Balbir Singh wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 5:55 PM, Ram Pai <linuxram@...ibm.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 03:26:01PM +1000, Balbir Singh wrote:
> >> On Wed,  5 Jul 2017 14:21:52 -0700
> >> Ram Pai <linuxram@...ibm.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Implements helper functions to read and write the key related
> >> > registers; AMR, IAMR, UAMOR.
> >> >
> >> > AMR register tracks the read,write permission of a key
> >> > IAMR register tracks the execute permission of a key
> >> > UAMOR register enables and disables a key
> >> >
> >> > Signed-off-by: Ram Pai <linuxram@...ibm.com>
> >> > ---
> >> >  arch/powerpc/include/asm/book3s/64/pgtable.h |   60 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >> >  1 files changed, 60 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> >> >
> >> > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/book3s/64/pgtable.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/book3s/64/pgtable.h
> >> > index 85bc987..435d6a7 100644
> >> > --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/book3s/64/pgtable.h
> >> > +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/book3s/64/pgtable.h
> >> > @@ -428,6 +428,66 @@ static inline void huge_ptep_set_wrprotect(struct mm_struct *mm,
> >> >             pte_update(mm, addr, ptep, 0, _PAGE_PRIVILEGED, 1);
> >> >  }
> >> >
> >> > +#ifdef CONFIG_PPC64_MEMORY_PROTECTION_KEYS
> >> > +
> >> > +#include <asm/reg.h>
> >> > +static inline u64 read_amr(void)
> >> > +{
> >> > +   return mfspr(SPRN_AMR);
> >> > +}
> >> > +static inline void write_amr(u64 value)
> >> > +{
> >> > +   mtspr(SPRN_AMR, value);
> >> > +}
> >> > +static inline u64 read_iamr(void)
> >> > +{
> >> > +   return mfspr(SPRN_IAMR);
> >> > +}
> >> > +static inline void write_iamr(u64 value)
> >> > +{
> >> > +   mtspr(SPRN_IAMR, value);
> >> > +}
> >> > +static inline u64 read_uamor(void)
> >> > +{
> >> > +   return mfspr(SPRN_UAMOR);
> >> > +}
> >> > +static inline void write_uamor(u64 value)
> >> > +{
> >> > +   mtspr(SPRN_UAMOR, value);
> >> > +}
> >> > +
> >> > +#else /* CONFIG_PPC64_MEMORY_PROTECTION_KEYS */
> >> > +
> >> > +static inline u64 read_amr(void)
> >> > +{
> >> > +   WARN(1, "%s called with MEMORY PROTECTION KEYS disabled\n", __func__);
> >> > +   return -1;
> >> > +}
> >>
> >> Why do we need to have a version here if we are going to WARN(), why not
> >> let the compilation fail if called from outside of CONFIG_PPC64_MEMORY_PROTECTION_KEYS?
> >> Is that the intention?
> >
> > I did not want to stop someone; kernel module for example, from calling
> > these interfaces from outside the pkey domain.
> >
> > Either way can be argued to be correct, I suppose.
> 
> Nope, build failures are better than run time failures, otherwise the
> kernel will split its guts warning and warning here.
> 

Well these are helper functions that can be called by anyone under
any situation. I will rather have them defined unconditionally; under
no ifdefs.  No spewing of warnings anymore. The registers will
be read or written as told. It just makes sense that way.

RP

-- 
Ram Pai