[PATCH v5 0/2] riscv: Map the kernel with correct permissions the first time
Alex Ghiti
alex at ghiti.fr
Thu Jun 17 05:08:28 PDT 2021
Le 17/06/2021 à 14:01, Alexandre Ghiti a écrit :
> The kernel permissions are fixed after the kernel page table is created:
> avoid that by mapping the kernel 'correctly' the first time.
>
> Patch 1 introduces a new helper to set kernel mapping permissions while
> avoiding all the casts when using set_memory_* API.
>
> Patch 2 is the bulk of this work and deals with mapping the kernel with
> the right permissions.
>
> Changes in v5:
> * Remove non-relevant commits to this patchset that raised issues
> * Make load_sz non-static as it is used in kernel address conversions
> macros
> * Rebased on top for-next
>
> Changes in v4:
> * Add patch 1 as noted by Jisheng
> * Changes patch 2 title as suggested by Anup
> * Add Reviewed-by from Anup
>
> Changes in v3:
> * Add a patch that factorizes kernel address conversions
> * Add a helper called set_kernel_memory in its own patch, as suggested by
> Christoph
> * Prefer IS_ENABLED over #ifdef, as suggested by Christoph
> * Split overly long lines, as suggested by Christoph
> * Simplify kernel mapping by mapping ALL text as readonly and taking advantage
> of already present code that enables write for init text before
> free_initmem_default.
>
> Changes in v2:
> * Rebased on top of for-next (and "riscv: mm: fix build errors caused by
> mk_pmd()")
> * Get rid of protect_kernel_linear_mapping_text_rodata as suggested by
> Jisheng
> * Improve code in general compared to previous RFC
>
> Alexandre Ghiti (2):
> riscv: Introduce set_kernel_memory helper
> riscv: Map the kernel with correct permissions the first time
>
> arch/riscv/include/asm/page.h | 13 +++-
> arch/riscv/include/asm/sections.h | 17 +++++
> arch/riscv/include/asm/set_memory.h | 13 ++--
> arch/riscv/kernel/setup.c | 11 +--
> arch/riscv/mm/init.c | 108 ++++++++++++----------------
> arch/riscv/mm/pageattr.c | 10 +++
> 6 files changed, 91 insertions(+), 81 deletions(-)
>
@Palmer: I removed the previous patchset (v4) you took in for-next and
cherry-picked those 2 while fixing conflicts, so if you do that in that
order, you should not have any problem :)
Thanks,
More information about the linux-riscv
mailing list