Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 2 Feb 2022 12:21:59 -0800 | From | Ira Weiny <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH V8 04/44] x86/pkeys: Add additional PKEY helper macros |
| |
On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 02:47:30PM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote: > On 1/27/22 09:54, ira.weiny@intel.com wrote: > > +#define PKR_AD_KEY(pkey) (PKR_AD_BIT << PKR_PKEY_SHIFT(pkey)) > > +#define PKR_WD_KEY(pkey) (PKR_WD_BIT << PKR_PKEY_SHIFT(pkey)) > > I don't _hate_ this, but naming here is wonky for me. PKR_WD_KEY reads > to me as "pkey register write-disable key", as in, please write-disable > this key, or maybe "make a write-disable key".
Ok... that is reasonable...
> > It's generating a mask, so I'd probably name it: > > #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);
I'll have to think about it but I don't think I like the following...
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?
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?
Ira
| |