Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1698016

Re: [RFC v6 17/62] powerpc: implementation for arch_set_user_pkey_access()

Show all headers | View raw

Ram Pai <linuxram@us.ibm.com> writes:
> @@ -113,10 +117,14 @@ static inline int arch_override_mprotect_pkey(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>  	return 0;
>  }
>
> +extern int __arch_set_user_pkey_access(struct task_struct *tsk, int pkey,
> +		unsigned long init_val);
>  static inline int arch_set_user_pkey_access(struct task_struct *tsk, int pkey,
>  		unsigned long init_val)
>  {
> -	return 0;
> +	if (!pkey_inited)
> +		return -1;
> +	return __arch_set_user_pkey_access(tsk, pkey, init_val);
>  }

If non-zero, the return value of this function will be passed to
userspace by the pkey_alloc syscall. Shouldn't it be returning an errno
macro such as -EPERM?

Also, why are there both arch_set_user_pkey_access and
__arch_set_user_pkey_access? Is it a speed optimization so that the
early return is inlined into the caller? Ditto for execute_only_pkey
and __arch_override_mprotect_pkey.

-- 
Thiago Jung Bauermann
IBM Linux Technology Center

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: [RFC v6 17/62] powerpc: implementation for arch_set_user_pkey_access() Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2017-07-27 16:20 +0200
  Re: [RFC v6 17/62] powerpc: implementation for  arch_set_user_pkey_access() Ram Pai <linuxram@us.ibm.com> - 2017-07-30 01:00 +0200

csiph-web