[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <00b87c5f-b4ed-7593-827c-0e1114b8b456@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2022 09:45:03 -0800
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: ira.weiny@...el.com, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Cc: Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V8 19/44] mm/pkeys: PKS Testing, add pks_mk_*() tests
On 1/27/22 09:54, ira.weiny@...el.com wrote:
> bool pks_test_callback(void)
> {
> - return false;
> + bool armed = (test_armed_key != 0);
> +
> + if (armed) {
> + pks_mk_readwrite(test_armed_key);
> + fault_cnt++;
> + }
> +
> + return armed;
> +}
Where's the locking for all this? I don't think we need anything fancy,
but is there anything preventing the test from being started from
multiple threads at the same time? I think a simple global test mutex
would probably suffice.
Also, pks_test_callback() needs at least a comment or two about what
it's doing.
Does this work if you have a test armed and then you get an unrelated
PKS fault on another CPU? I think this will disarm the test from the
unrelated thread.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists