[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <87d18m3r07.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 11:15:36 -0300
From: Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Ram Pai <linuxram@...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,
arnd@...db.de, corbet@....net, mhocko@...nel.org,
dave.hansen@...el.com, mingo@...hat.com, paulus@...ba.org,
aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
khandual@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [RFC v6 17/62] powerpc: implementation for arch_set_user_pkey_access()
Ram Pai <linuxram@...ibm.com> writes:
> @@ -113,10 +117,14 @@ static inline int arch_override_mprotect_pkey(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> return 0;
> }
>
> +extern int __arch_set_user_pkey_access(struct task_struct *tsk, int pkey,
> + unsigned long init_val);
> static inline int arch_set_user_pkey_access(struct task_struct *tsk, int pkey,
> unsigned long init_val)
> {
> - return 0;
> + if (!pkey_inited)
> + return -1;
> + return __arch_set_user_pkey_access(tsk, pkey, init_val);
> }
If non-zero, the return value of this function will be passed to
userspace by the pkey_alloc syscall. Shouldn't it be returning an errno
macro such as -EPERM?
Also, why are there both arch_set_user_pkey_access and
__arch_set_user_pkey_access? Is it a speed optimization so that the
early return is inlined into the caller? Ditto for execute_only_pkey
and __arch_override_mprotect_pkey.
--
Thiago Jung Bauermann
IBM Linux Technology Center
Powered by blists - more mailing lists