[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20150507174134.6EF61ECE@viggo.jf.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 07 May 2015 10:41:34 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave@...1.net>
To: dave@...1.net
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org
Subject: [PATCH 05/12] x86, pkeys: new page fault error code bit: PF_PK
Note: "PK" is how the Intel SDM refers to this bit, so we also
use that nomenclature.
This only defines the bit, it does not plumb it anywhere to be
handled.
---
b/arch/x86/mm/fault.c | 7 ++++++-
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff -puN arch/x86/mm/fault.c~pkeys-4-pfec arch/x86/mm/fault.c
--- a/arch/x86/mm/fault.c~pkeys-4-pfec 2015-05-07 10:31:42.568240681 -0700
+++ b/arch/x86/mm/fault.c 2015-05-07 10:31:42.571240816 -0700
@@ -31,6 +31,7 @@
* bit 2 == 0: kernel-mode access 1: user-mode access
* bit 3 == 1: use of reserved bit detected
* bit 4 == 1: fault was an instruction fetch
+ * bit 5 == 1: protection keys block access
*/
enum x86_pf_error_code {
@@ -39,6 +40,7 @@ enum x86_pf_error_code {
PF_USER = 1 << 2,
PF_RSVD = 1 << 3,
PF_INSTR = 1 << 4,
+ PF_PK = 1 << 5,
};
/*
@@ -912,7 +914,10 @@ static int spurious_fault_check(unsigned
if ((error_code & PF_INSTR) && !pte_exec(*pte))
return 0;
-
+ /*
+ * Note: We do not do lazy flushing on protection key
+ * changes, so no spurious fault will ever set PF_PK.
+ */
return 1;
}
_
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists