Documentation: x86: convert intel_mpx.txt to reST

This converts the plain text documentation to reStructuredText format and
add it to Sphinx TOC tree. No essential content change.

Signed-off-by: Changbin Du <[e-mail]>
Reviewed-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <[e-mail]>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <[e-mail]>

Documentation/x86/index.rst

···
    mtrr
    pat
    protection-keys
+   intel_mpx

Documentation/x86/intel_mpx.txt Documentation/x86/intel_mpx.rst

···
-1. Intel(R) MPX Overview
-========================
+.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+
+===========================================
+Intel(R) Memory Protection Extensions (MPX)
+===========================================
+
+Intel(R) MPX Overview
+=====================
 
 Intel(R) Memory Protection Extensions (Intel(R) MPX) is a new capability
 introduced into Intel Architecture. Intel MPX provides hardware features
···
 references, for those references whose compile-time normal intentions are
 usurped at runtime due to buffer overflow or underflow.
 
-You can tell if your CPU supports MPX by looking in /proc/cpuinfo:
+You can tell if your CPU supports MPX by looking in /proc/cpuinfo::
 
 	cat /proc/cpuinfo  | grep ' mpx '
 
···
 http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/intel-software-development-emulator
 
 
-2. How to get the advantage of MPX
-==================================
+How to get the advantage of MPX
+===============================
 
 For MPX to work, changes are required in the kernel, binutils and compiler.
 No source changes are required for applications, just a recompile.
···
    is unmapped.
 
 
-3. How does MPX kernel code work
-================================
+How does MPX kernel code work
+=============================
 
 Handling #BR faults caused by MPX
 ---------------------------------
 
 When MPX is enabled, there are 2 new situations that can generate
 #BR faults.
+
   * new bounds tables (BT) need to be allocated to save bounds.
   * bounds violation caused by MPX instructions.
 
···
 are a few ways this could be done. We don't think any of them are practical
 in the real-world, but here they are.
 
-Q: Can virtual space simply be reserved for the bounds tables so that we
-   never have to allocate them?
-A: MPX-enabled application will possibly create a lot of bounds tables in
-   process address space to save bounds information. These tables can take
-   up huge swaths of memory (as much as 80% of the memory on the system)
-   even if we clean them up aggressively. In the worst-case scenario, the
-   tables can be 4x the size of the data structure being tracked. IOW, a
-   1-page structure can require 4 bounds-table pages. An X-GB virtual
-   area needs 4*X GB of virtual space, plus 2GB for the bounds directory.
-   If we were to preallocate them for the 128TB of user virtual address
-   space, we would need to reserve 512TB+2GB, which is larger than the
-   entire virtual address space today. This means they can not be reserved
-   ahead of time. Also, a single process's pre-populated bounds directory
-   consumes 2GB of virtual *AND* physical memory. IOW, it's completely
-   infeasible to prepopulate bounds directories.
+:Q: Can virtual space simply be reserved for the bounds tables so that we
+    never have to allocate them?
+:A: MPX-enabled application will possibly create a lot of bounds tables in
+    process address space to save bounds information. These tables can take
+    up huge swaths of memory (as much as 80% of the memory on the system)
+    even if we clean them up aggressively. In the worst-case scenario, the
+    tables can be 4x the size of the data structure being tracked. IOW, a
+    1-page structure can require 4 bounds-table pages. An X-GB virtual
+    area needs 4*X GB of virtual space, plus 2GB for the bounds directory.
+    If we were to preallocate them for the 128TB of user virtual address
+    space, we would need to reserve 512TB+2GB, which is larger than the
+    entire virtual address space today. This means they can not be reserved
+    ahead of time. Also, a single process's pre-populated bounds directory
+    consumes 2GB of virtual *AND* physical memory. IOW, it's completely
+    infeasible to prepopulate bounds directories.
 
-Q: Can we preallocate bounds table space at the same time memory is
-   allocated which might contain pointers that might eventually need
-   bounds tables?
-A: This would work if we could hook the site of each and every memory
-   allocation syscall. This can be done for small, constrained applications.
-   But, it isn't practical at a larger scale since a given app has no
-   way of controlling how all the parts of the app might allocate memory
-   (think libraries). The kernel is really the only place to intercept
-   these calls.
+:Q: Can we preallocate bounds table space at the same time memory is
+    allocated which might contain pointers that might eventually need
+    bounds tables?
+:A: This would work if we could hook the site of each and every memory
+    allocation syscall. This can be done for small, constrained applications.
+    But, it isn't practical at a larger scale since a given app has no
+    way of controlling how all the parts of the app might allocate memory
+    (think libraries). The kernel is really the only place to intercept
+    these calls.
 
-Q: Could a bounds fault be handed to userspace and the tables allocated
-   there in a signal handler instead of in the kernel?
-A: mmap() is not on the list of safe async handler functions and even
-   if mmap() would work it still requires locking or nasty tricks to
-   keep track of the allocation state there.
+:Q: Could a bounds fault be handed to userspace and the tables allocated
+    there in a signal handler instead of in the kernel?
+:A: mmap() is not on the list of safe async handler functions and even
+    if mmap() would work it still requires locking or nasty tricks to
+    keep track of the allocation state there.
 
 Having ruled out all of the userspace-only approaches for managing
 bounds tables that we could think of, we create them on demand in
···
 We need to decode MPX instructions to get violation address and
 set this address into extended struct siginfo.
 
-The _sigfault field of struct siginfo is extended as follow:
+The _sigfault field of struct siginfo is extended as follow::
 
-87		/* SIGILL, SIGFPE, SIGSEGV, SIGBUS */
-88		struct {
-89			void __user *_addr; /* faulting insn/memory ref. */
-90 #ifdef __ARCH_SI_TRAPNO
-91			int _trapno;	/* TRAP # which caused the signal */
-92 #endif
-93			short _addr_lsb; /* LSB of the reported address */
-94			struct {
-95				void __user *_lower;
-96				void __user *_upper;
-97			} _addr_bnd;
-98		} _sigfault;
+  87		/* SIGILL, SIGFPE, SIGSEGV, SIGBUS */
+  88		struct {
+  89			void __user *_addr; /* faulting insn/memory ref. */
+  90 #ifdef __ARCH_SI_TRAPNO
+  91			int _trapno;	/* TRAP # which caused the signal */
+  92 #endif
+  93			short _addr_lsb; /* LSB of the reported address */
+  94			struct {
+  95				void __user *_lower;
+  96				void __user *_upper;
+  97			} _addr_bnd;
+  98		} _sigfault;
 
 The '_addr' field refers to violation address, and new '_addr_and'
 field refers to the upper/lower bounds when a #BR is caused.
···
 
 Two new prctl commands are added to enable and disable MPX bounds tables
 management in kernel.
+::
 
-155	#define PR_MPX_ENABLE_MANAGEMENT	43
-156	#define PR_MPX_DISABLE_MANAGEMENT	44
+  155	#define PR_MPX_ENABLE_MANAGEMENT	43
+  156	#define PR_MPX_DISABLE_MANAGEMENT	44
 
 Runtime library in userspace is responsible for allocation of bounds
 directory. So kernel have to use XSAVE instruction to get the base
···
 command execution.
 
 
-4. Special rules
-================
+Special rules
+=============
 
 1) If userspace is requesting help from the kernel to do the management
 of bounds tables, it may not create or modify entries in the bounds directory.