Received: by 10.223.185.111 with SMTP id b44csp1110455wrg; Fri, 9 Mar 2018 21:58:01 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELvJqnzLsJvY+svx0+MVBnT9D4PmvTnBYHqSnOSw7BeJbjO33TXlPGodDs6MgfR4r25thBxe X-Received: by 10.98.93.193 with SMTP id n62mr1034216pfj.83.1520661481446; Fri, 09 Mar 2018 21:58:01 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1520661481; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=DQ8qnXjinb4b/26CI4e6JxWPcTT7ZAr/5+vN2xDuEwr3Brqb9DDUbzjx/q0R1RN+8/ gYMaOKYyBtr1bW7gQXBB6yLK0k/3oi3LM3J25jDnaVT+BMiUQszC6AQTe2sHk23eeDCq BarNwLSZK0jEoYuzgkZCcX9PtITaAi1FoSylQL6H5bebGQbQdhaSAZVJiRuvjOKwFh7b wtHtDmFr+Ta/0LKlo2fpRrdC0gw2BELg7VlcnwmyyMdutehyuy0EQEPSqdmgAKD6x4mm dGdqRUEeXlMitLubwMMCq1fhmmJFZXYUfl00LM4Hp0s2o5MvVw+PiNxbbY0jRxq60cjT K1gA== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:message-id:user-agent:in-reply-to :content-disposition:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:cc:to :from:date:arc-authentication-results; bh=ic2lfenc3L7pHH3n3QChUsZ9vVu3EPs6sc3WoVKWyOI=; b=RWKqaZ2NoHbkC0w0sjD4nrJxG4WBKxqIoUcMUCdFTWDy70xdeIibMCU+oZsdP6Yt/J dF6Z1LXPmaWxs19yU87/DEKJT3MfnDS0IrtC1PW7H6UfOBLJMp8gapqjoHJD9xMu2zOq /ApATykYBpXqMq4p4MegVSRioJTXVeD1kt1Zw3vnCaKallB9/3MItT5Q3DG8tTbND26+ Bob7Tx4lEOy0qAXJLlLRVsFAqRggkdRAC9U3sW8ABhL7e9lEu7bLtv5x3995xI6RGCT4 RzqWA3+QAPrSPo2AaMshEQYcSmZx8PSGz76m2jB8ADhtPUxvfebzEBHLzlGGsMIenBrc ymFw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=ibm.com Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id q4-v6si2207750plb.29.2018.03.09.21.56.59; Fri, 09 Mar 2018 21:58:01 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=ibm.com Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751714AbeCJF4C (ORCPT + 99 others); Sat, 10 Mar 2018 00:56:02 -0500 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:57866 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750884AbeCJF4A (ORCPT ); Sat, 10 Mar 2018 00:56:00 -0500 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098421.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id w2A5svGX062916 for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2018 00:56:00 -0500 Received: from e06smtp11.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp11.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.107]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2gm907gx41-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA256 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2018 00:55:59 -0500 Received: from localhost by e06smtp11.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Sat, 10 Mar 2018 05:55:58 -0000 Received: from b06cxnps3075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (9.149.109.195) by e06smtp11.uk.ibm.com (192.168.101.141) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; Sat, 10 Mar 2018 05:55:52 -0000 Received: from d06av21.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av21.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.232]) by b06cxnps3075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id w2A5tqxU55640228; Sat, 10 Mar 2018 05:55:52 GMT Received: from d06av21.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id E126452041; Sat, 10 Mar 2018 04:47:26 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ram.oc3035372033.ibm.com (unknown [9.85.196.180]) by d06av21.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 51A3952043; Sat, 10 Mar 2018 04:47:22 +0000 (GMT) Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 21:55:44 -0800 From: Ram Pai To: Dave Hansen Cc: mpe@ellerman.id.au, mingo@redhat.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, x86@kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, benh@kernel.crashing.org, paulus@samba.org, khandual@linux.vnet.ibm.com, aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com, bsingharora@gmail.com, hbabu@us.ibm.com, mhocko@kernel.org, bauerman@linux.vnet.ibm.com, ebiederm@xmission.com, corbet@lwn.net, arnd@arndb.de, fweimer@redhat.com, msuchanek@suse.com, Ulrich.Weigand@de.ibm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86, powerpc : pkey-mprotect must allow pkey-0 Reply-To: Ram Pai References: <1520583161-11741-1-git-send-email-linuxram@us.ibm.com> <60886e4a-59d4-541a-a6af-d4504e6719ad@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <60886e4a-59d4-541a-a6af-d4504e6719ad@intel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-12-10) X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 18031005-0040-0000-0000-0000043D18C2 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 18031005-0041-0000-0000-000020E03EF8 Message-Id: <20180310055544.GU1060@ram.oc3035372033.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:,, definitions=2018-03-10_03:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 impostorscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1709140000 definitions=main-1803100068 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 02:40:32PM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote: > On 03/09/2018 12:12 AM, Ram Pai wrote: > > Once an address range is associated with an allocated pkey, it cannot be > > reverted back to key-0. There is no valid reason for the above behavior. On > > the contrary applications need the ability to do so. > > Why don't we just set pkey 0 to be allocated in the allocation bitmap by > default? ok. that will make it allocatable. But it will not be associatable, given the bug in the current code. And what will be the default key associated with a pte? zero? or something else? > > We *could* also just not let it be special and let it be freed. An app > could theoretically be careful and make sure nothing is using it. unable to see how this solves the problem. Need some more explaination. RP