[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20170710060544.GF5713@ram.oc3035372033.ibm.com>
Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2017 23:05:44 -0700
From: Ram Pai <linuxram@...ibm.com>
To: Anshuman Khandual <khandual@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, x86@...nel.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
benh@...nel.crashing.org, paulus@...ba.org, mpe@...erman.id.au,
aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, bsingharora@...il.com,
dave.hansen@...el.com, hbabu@...ibm.com, arnd@...db.de,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, corbet@....net, mingo@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC v5 00/38] powerpc: Memory Protection Keys
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 11:13:23AM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> On 07/06/2017 02:51 AM, Ram Pai wrote:
> > Memory protection keys enable applications to protect its
> > address space from inadvertent access or corruption from
> > itself.
> >
> > The overall idea:
> >
> > A process allocates a key and associates it with
> > an address range within its address space.
> > The process then can dynamically set read/write
> > permissions on the key without involving the
> > kernel. Any code that violates the permissions
> > of the address space; as defined by its associated
> > key, will receive a segmentation fault.
> >
> > This patch series enables the feature on PPC64 HPTE
> > platform.
> >
> > ISA3.0 section 5.7.13 describes the detailed specifications.
> >
> >
> > Testing:
> > This patch series has passed all the protection key
> > tests available in the selftests directory.
> > The tests are updated to work on both x86 and powerpc.
> >
> > version v5:
> > (1) reverted back to the old design -- store the
> > key in the pte, instead of bypassing it.
> > The v4 design slowed down the hash page path.
> > (2) detects key violation when kernel is told to
> > access user pages.
> > (3) further refined the patches into smaller consumable
> > units
> > (4) page faults handlers captures the faulting key
> > from the pte instead of the vma. This closes a
> > race between where the key update in the vma and
> > a key fault caused cause by the key programmed
> > in the pte.
> > (5) a key created with access-denied should
> > also set it up to deny write. Fixed it.
> > (6) protection-key number is displayed in smaps
> > the x86 way.
>
> Hello Ram,
>
> This patch series has now grown a lot. Do you have this
> hosted some where for us to pull and test it out ? BTW
https://github.com/rampai/memorykeys.git
branch memkey.v5.3
> do you have data points to show the difference in
> performance between this version and the last one where
> we skipped the bits from PTE and directly programmed the
> HPTE entries looking into VMA bits.
No. I dont. I am hoping you can help me out with this.
RP
Powered by blists - more mailing lists