Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Wed, 2 Feb 2022 12:28:59 -0800
From:   Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com>
To:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
Cc:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
        Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com>,
        Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V8 04/44] x86/pkeys: Add additional PKEY helper macros
Message-ID: <20220202202859.GW785175@iweiny-DESK2.sc.intel.com>
References: <20220127175505.851391-1-ira.weiny@intel.com>
 <20220127175505.851391-5-ira.weiny@intel.com>
 <8967ea5a-99bf-8990-6ee1-8e0d32031f16@intel.com>
 <20220202202159.GU785175@iweiny-DESK2.sc.intel.com>
 <eff862e2-bfaa-9e12-42b5-a12467d72a22@intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <eff862e2-bfaa-9e12-42b5-a12467d72a22@intel.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.1 (2018-12-01)
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Feb 02, 2022 at 12:26:44PM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 2/2/22 12:21, Ira Weiny wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 02:47:30PM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> >> #define PKR_WD_MASK(pkey)	(PKR_WD_BIT << PKR_PKEY_SHIFT(pkey))
> >>
> >> Which says, "generate a write-disabled mask for this pkey".
> > 
> > I think the confusion comes from me having used these as mask values rather
> > than what PKR_AD_KEY() was intended to be used for.
> > 
> > In the previous patch PKR_AD_KEY() is used to set up the default user pkey
> > value...
> > 
> > u32 init_pkru_value = PKR_AD_KEY( 1) | PKR_AD_KEY( 2) | PKR_AD_KEY( 3) |
> > 		      PKR_AD_KEY( 4) | PKR_AD_KEY( 5) | PKR_AD_KEY( 6) |
> > 		      PKR_AD_KEY( 7) | PKR_AD_KEY( 8) | PKR_AD_KEY( 9) |
> > 		      PKR_AD_KEY(10) | PKR_AD_KEY(11) | PKR_AD_KEY(12) |
> > 		      PKR_AD_KEY(13) | PKR_AD_KEY(14) | PKR_AD_KEY(15);
> > 
> 
> Hah, I'm complaining about my own code.
> 
> > u32 init_pkru_value = PKR_AD_MASK( 1) | PKR_AD_MASK( 2) | PKR_AD_MASK( 3) |
> > 		      PKR_AD_MASK( 4) | PKR_AD_MASK( 5) | PKR_AD_MASK( 6) |
> > 		      PKR_AD_MASK( 7) | PKR_AD_MASK( 8) | PKR_AD_MASK( 9) |
> > 		      PKR_AD_MASK(10) | PKR_AD_MASK(11) | PKR_AD_MASK(12) |
> > 		      PKR_AD_MASK(13) | PKR_AD_MASK(14) | PKR_AD_MASK(15);
> > 
> > It seems odd to me.  Does it seem odd to you?
> 
> Looks OK to me.  It's build a "value" out of a bunch of individual masks.
> 
> > Looking at the final code I think I'm going to just drop the usages in this
> > patch and add PKR_WD_KEY() where it is used first.
> > 
> > Also, how about PKR_KEY_INIT_{AD|WD|RW}() as a name?
> 
> For the PKR_AD_KEY() macro?

Yes if I drop this patch then the only place these are used is to initialize
the registers.

Ira