Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751178AbdGMHpP (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Jul 2017 03:45:15 -0400 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:34983 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750949AbdGMHpL (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Jul 2017 03:45:11 -0400 Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 00:45:00 -0700 From: Ram Pai To: Balbir Singh Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, x86@kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, benh@kernel.crashing.org, paulus@samba.org, mpe@ellerman.id.au, khandual@linux.vnet.ibm.com, aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com, dave.hansen@intel.com, hbabu@us.ibm.com, arnd@arndb.de, akpm@linux-foundation.org, corbet@lwn.net, mingo@redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFC v5 14/38] powerpc: initial plumbing for key management Reply-To: Ram Pai References: <1499289735-14220-1-git-send-email-linuxram@us.ibm.com> <1499289735-14220-15-git-send-email-linuxram@us.ibm.com> <20170712132825.2a37e2e9@firefly.ozlabs.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170712132825.2a37e2e9@firefly.ozlabs.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-12-10) X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 17071307-0056-0000-0000-000003A62FF0 X-IBM-SpamModules-Scores: X-IBM-SpamModules-Versions: BY=3.00007359; HX=3.00000241; KW=3.00000007; PH=3.00000004; SC=3.00000214; SDB=6.00886874; UDB=6.00442743; IPR=6.00667019; BA=6.00005469; NDR=6.00000001; ZLA=6.00000005; ZF=6.00000009; ZB=6.00000000; ZP=6.00000000; ZH=6.00000000; ZU=6.00000002; MB=3.00016209; XFM=3.00000015; UTC=2017-07-13 07:45:08 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 17071307-0057-0000-0000-000007DC3DAF Message-Id: <20170713074500.GF5525@ram.oc3035372033.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:,, definitions=2017-07-13_03:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=2 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1706020000 definitions=main-1707130119 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 7539 Lines: 243 On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 01:28:25PM +1000, Balbir Singh wrote: > On Wed, 5 Jul 2017 14:21:51 -0700 > Ram Pai wrote: > > > Initial plumbing to manage all the keys supported by the > > hardware. > > > > Total 32 keys are supported on powerpc. However pkey 0,1 > > and 31 are reserved. So effectively we have 29 pkeys. > > > > This patch keeps track of reserved keys, allocated keys > > and keys that are currently free. > > It looks like this patch will only work in guest mode? > Is that an assumption we've made? What happens if I use > keys when running in hypervisor mode? It works in supervisor mode, as a guest aswell as a bare-metal kernel. Whatever needs to be done in hypervisor mode is already there in power-kvm. > > > > > Also it adds skeletal functions and macros, that the > > architecture-independent code expects to be available. > > > > Signed-off-by: Ram Pai > > --- > > arch/powerpc/Kconfig | 16 +++++ > > arch/powerpc/include/asm/book3s/64/mmu.h | 9 +++ > > arch/powerpc/include/asm/pkeys.h | 106 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > arch/powerpc/mm/mmu_context_book3s64.c | 5 ++ > > 4 files changed, 136 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > create mode 100644 arch/powerpc/include/asm/pkeys.h > > > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/Kconfig b/arch/powerpc/Kconfig > > index f7c8f99..a2480b6 100644 > > --- a/arch/powerpc/Kconfig > > +++ b/arch/powerpc/Kconfig > > @@ -871,6 +871,22 @@ config SECCOMP > > > > If unsure, say Y. Only embedded should say N here. > > > > +config PPC64_MEMORY_PROTECTION_KEYS > > + prompt "PowerPC Memory Protection Keys" > > + def_bool y > > + # Note: only available in 64-bit mode > > + depends on PPC64 && PPC_64K_PAGES > > + select ARCH_USES_HIGH_VMA_FLAGS > > + select ARCH_HAS_PKEYS > > + ---help--- > > + Memory Protection Keys provides a mechanism for enforcing > > + page-based protections, but without requiring modification of the > > + page tables when an application changes protection domains. > > + > > + For details, see Documentation/powerpc/protection-keys.txt > > + > > + If unsure, say y. > > + > > endmenu > > > > config ISA_DMA_API > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/book3s/64/mmu.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/book3s/64/mmu.h > > index 77529a3..104ad72 100644 > > --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/book3s/64/mmu.h > > +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/book3s/64/mmu.h > > @@ -108,6 +108,15 @@ struct patb_entry { > > #ifdef CONFIG_SPAPR_TCE_IOMMU > > struct list_head iommu_group_mem_list; > > #endif > > + > > +#ifdef CONFIG_PPC64_MEMORY_PROTECTION_KEYS > > + /* > > + * Each bit represents one protection key. > > + * bit set -> key allocated > > + * bit unset -> key available for allocation > > + */ > > + u32 pkey_allocation_map; > > +#endif > > } mm_context_t; > > > > /* > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/pkeys.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/pkeys.h > > new file mode 100644 > > index 0000000..9345767 > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/pkeys.h > > @@ -0,0 +1,106 @@ > > +#ifndef _ASM_PPC64_PKEYS_H > > +#define _ASM_PPC64_PKEYS_H > > + > > +#define arch_max_pkey() 32 > > +#define ARCH_VM_PKEY_FLAGS (VM_PKEY_BIT0 | VM_PKEY_BIT1 | VM_PKEY_BIT2 | \ > > + VM_PKEY_BIT3 | VM_PKEY_BIT4) > > +/* > > + * Bits are in BE format. > > + * NOTE: key 31, 1, 0 are not used. > > + * key 0 is used by default. It give read/write/execute permission. > > + * key 31 is reserved by the hypervisor. > > + * key 1 is recommended to be not used. > > + * PowerISA(3.0) page 1015, programming note. > > + */ > > +#define PKEY_INITIAL_ALLOCAION 0xc0000001 > > Shouldn't this be exchanged via CAS for guests? Have you seen > ibm,processor-storage-keys? Yes. Was one of my TODOs to initilize this using the device-tree interface. A brief look at that did not show the reserved keys properly enumerated. But I may be wrong. > > > + > > +#define pkeybit_mask(pkey) (0x1 << (arch_max_pkey() - pkey - 1)) > > + > > +#define mm_pkey_allocation_map(mm) (mm->context.pkey_allocation_map) > > + > > +#define mm_set_pkey_allocated(mm, pkey) { \ > > + mm_pkey_allocation_map(mm) |= pkeybit_mask(pkey); \ > > +} > > + > > +#define mm_set_pkey_free(mm, pkey) { \ > > + mm_pkey_allocation_map(mm) &= ~pkeybit_mask(pkey); \ > > +} > > + > > +#define mm_set_pkey_is_allocated(mm, pkey) \ > > + (mm_pkey_allocation_map(mm) & pkeybit_mask(pkey)) > > + > > +#define mm_set_pkey_is_reserved(mm, pkey) (PKEY_INITIAL_ALLOCAION & \ > > + pkeybit_mask(pkey)) > > + > > +static inline bool mm_pkey_is_allocated(struct mm_struct *mm, int pkey) > > +{ > > + /* a reserved key is never considered as 'explicitly allocated' */ > > + return (!mm_set_pkey_is_reserved(mm, pkey) && > > + mm_set_pkey_is_allocated(mm, pkey)); > > +} > > + > > +/* > > + * Returns a positive, 5-bit key on success, or -1 on failure. > > + */ > > +static inline int mm_pkey_alloc(struct mm_struct *mm) > > +{ > > + /* > > + * Note: this is the one and only place we make sure > > + * that the pkey is valid as far as the hardware is > > + * concerned. The rest of the kernel trusts that > > + * only good, valid pkeys come out of here. > > + */ > > + u32 all_pkeys_mask = (u32)(~(0x0)); > > + int ret; > > + > > + /* > > + * Are we out of pkeys? We must handle this specially > > + * because ffz() behavior is undefined if there are no > > + * zeros. > > + */ > > + if (mm_pkey_allocation_map(mm) == all_pkeys_mask) > > + return -1; > > + > > + ret = arch_max_pkey() - > > + ffz((u32)mm_pkey_allocation_map(mm)) > > + - 1; > > + mm_set_pkey_allocated(mm, ret); > > + return ret; > > +} > > So the locking is provided by the caller for the function above? yes. > > > + > > +static inline int mm_pkey_free(struct mm_struct *mm, int pkey) > > +{ > > + if (!mm_pkey_is_allocated(mm, pkey)) > > + return -EINVAL; > > + > > + mm_set_pkey_free(mm, pkey); > > + > > + return 0; > > +} > > + > > +/* > > + * Try to dedicate one of the protection keys to be used as an > > + * execute-only protection key. > > + */ > > +static inline int execute_only_pkey(struct mm_struct *mm) > > +{ > > + return 0; > > +} > > + > > +static inline int arch_override_mprotect_pkey(struct vm_area_struct *vma, > > + int prot, int pkey) > > +{ > > + return 0; > > +} > > + > > +static inline int arch_set_user_pkey_access(struct task_struct *tsk, int pkey, > > + unsigned long init_val) > > +{ > > + return 0; > > +} > > + > > +static inline void pkey_mm_init(struct mm_struct *mm) > > +{ > > + mm_pkey_allocation_map(mm) = PKEY_INITIAL_ALLOCAION; > > +} > > +#endif /*_ASM_PPC64_PKEYS_H */ > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/mm/mmu_context_book3s64.c b/arch/powerpc/mm/mmu_context_book3s64.c > > index c6dca2a..2da9931 100644 > > --- a/arch/powerpc/mm/mmu_context_book3s64.c > > +++ b/arch/powerpc/mm/mmu_context_book3s64.c > > @@ -16,6 +16,7 @@ > > #include > > #include > > #include > > +#include > > #include > > #include > > #include > > @@ -120,6 +121,10 @@ static int hash__init_new_context(struct mm_struct *mm) > > > > subpage_prot_init_new_context(mm); > > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_PPC64_MEMORY_PROTECTION_KEYS > > + pkey_mm_init(mm); > > Can we have two variants of pkey_mm_init() and avoid #ifdefs around the code? ok. > > > +#endif /* CONFIG_PPC64_MEMORY_PROTECTION_KEYS */ > > + > > return index; > > } > > > > Balbir Singh. -- Ram Pai