lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Nov]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] x86, pkeys: update documentation about availability

* Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com> wrote:

>
> From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
>
> Now that CPUs that implement Memory Protection Keys are publicly
> available we can be a bit less oblique about where it is available.
>
> Signed-off-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
> ---
>
> b/Documentation/x86/protection-keys.txt | 9 +++++++--
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff -puN Documentation/x86/protection-keys.txt~pkeys-update Documentation/x86/protection-keys.txt
> --- a/Documentation/x86/protection-keys.txt~pkeys-update 2017-11-09 10:36:53.381467202 -0800
> +++ b/Documentation/x86/protection-keys.txt 2017-11-09 10:43:15.527466249 -0800
> @@ -1,5 +1,10 @@
> -Memory Protection Keys for Userspace (PKU aka PKEYs) is a CPU feature
> -which will be found on future Intel CPUs.
> +Memory Protection Keys for Userspace (PKU aka PKEYs) is a feature
> +which is found on Intel's Skylake "Scalable Processor" Server CPUs.
> +It will be avalable in future non-server parts.
> +
> +For anyone wishing to test or use this feature, it is available in
> +Amazon's EC2 C5 instances and is known to work there using an Ubuntu
> +17.04 image.
>
> Memory Protection Keys provides a mechanism for enforcing page-based
> protections, but without requiring modification of the page tables

Could we please first fix the pkeys self-test? One of the testcases doesn't build
at all:

gcc -m32 -o /home/mingo/tip/tools/testing/selftests/x86/protection_keys_32 -O2 -g -std=gnu99 -pthread -Wall -no-pie protection_keys.c -lrt -ldl -lm
In file included from /usr/include/signal.h:57:0,
from protection_keys.c:33:
protection_keys.c: In function ‘signal_handler’:
protection_keys.c:253:6: error: expected ‘=’, ‘,’, ‘;’, ‘asm’ or ‘__attribute__’
before ‘.’ token
u64 si_pkey;
^

plus, on a related note, the MPX testcase produces annoying warnings:

gcc -m32 -o /home/mingo/tip/tools/testing/selftests/x86/mpx-mini-test_32 -O2 -g -std=gnu99 -pthread -Wall -no-pie mpx-mini-test.c -lrt -ldl -lm
mpx-mini-test.c: In function ‘insn_test_failed’:
mpx-mini-test.c:1406:3: warning: array subscript is above array bounds
[-Warray-bounds]
printf("bte[1]: %lx\n", bte->contents[1]);
^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
mpx-mini-test.c:1407:3: warning: array subscript is above array bounds
[-Warray-bounds]
printf("bte[2]: %lx\n", bte->contents[2]);
^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
mpx-mini-test.c:1408:3: warning: array subscript is above array bounds
[-Warray-bounds]
printf("bte[3]: %lx\n", bte->contents[3]);
^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Thanks,

Ingo

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-11-10 07:13    [W:0.054 / U:13.468 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site