Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
IronPort-SDR: t0cm1t6hDHqBWbnymcYBQWQ0V0T1mscZggcEyDdYPQ31BUuWDMTiVuf5pXxU5UMobiOPDpoctM
 Auy7mfGjf6OQ==
IronPort-SDR: NHUhhr4Ld0+ktxaexVqc9ly5ziPRS5Y+EjthlhRuorVcxAnBGj8aOQJlCSYv9leRTjjDuriVDY
 sxTjbk20XkgQ==
Date:   Tue, 3 Nov 2020 10:42:18 -0800
From:   Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com>, x86@kernel.org,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 05/10] x86/pks: Add PKS kernel API
Message-ID: <20201103184218.GB1531489@iweiny-DESK2.sc.intel.com>
References: <20201102205320.1458656-1-ira.weiny@intel.com>
 <20201102205320.1458656-6-ira.weiny@intel.com>
 <20201103065024.GC75930@kroah.com>
 <20201103175335.GA1531489@iweiny-DESK2.sc.intel.com>
 <20201103181407.GA83845@kroah.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20201103181407.GA83845@kroah.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.1 (2018-12-01)
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Nov 03, 2020 at 07:14:07PM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 03, 2020 at 09:53:36AM -0800, Ira Weiny wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 03, 2020 at 07:50:24AM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 02, 2020 at 12:53:15PM -0800, ira.weiny@intel.com wrote:
> > > > From: Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com>
> > > > 
> > 
> > [snip]
> > 
> > > > diff --git a/include/linux/pkeys.h b/include/linux/pkeys.h
> > > > index 2955ba976048..0959a4c0ca64 100644
> > > > --- a/include/linux/pkeys.h
> > > > +++ b/include/linux/pkeys.h
> > > > @@ -50,4 +50,28 @@ static inline void copy_init_pkru_to_fpregs(void)
> > > >  
> > > >  #endif /* ! CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_PKEYS */
> > > >  
> > > > +#define PKS_FLAG_EXCLUSIVE 0x00
> > > > +
> > > > +#ifndef CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_SUPERVISOR_PKEYS
> > > > +static inline int pks_key_alloc(const char * const pkey_user, int flags)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > > > +}
> > > > +static inline void pks_key_free(int pkey)
> > > > +{
> > > > +}
> > > > +static inline void pks_mk_noaccess(int pkey)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	WARN_ON_ONCE(1);
> > > 
> > > So for panic-on-warn systems, this is ok to reboot the box?
> > 
> > I would not expect this to reboot the box no.  But it is a violation of the API
> > contract.  If pky_key_alloc() returns an error calling any of the other
> > functions is an error.
> > 
> > > 
> > > Are you sure, that feels odd...
> > 
> > It does feel odd and downright wrong...  But there are a lot of WARN_ON_ONCE's
> > out there to catch this type of internal programming error.  Is panic-on-warn
> > commonly used?
> 
> Yes it is, and we are trying to recover from that as it is something
> that you should recover from.  Properly handle the error and move on.

Sorry, I did not know that...  Ok I'll look at the series because I probably
have others I need to change.

Thanks,
Ira