linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ram Pai <linuxram@us.ibm.com>
To: Balbir Singh <bsingharora@gmail.com>
Cc: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	"akpm@linux-foundation.org" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	"open list:LINUX FOR POWERPC (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)"
	<linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>, linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	"maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)"
	<x86@kernel.org>, linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
	Anshuman Khandual <khandual@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Aneesh Kumar KV <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Haren Myneni/Beaverton/IBM <hbabu@us.ibm.com>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
	Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
	fweimer@redhat.com, msuchanek@suse.com,
	Ulrich.Weigand@de.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86, powerpc : pkey-mprotect must allow pkey-0
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 11:54:35 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180309195435.GQ1060@ram.oc3035372033.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKTCnz=QrNoG0wdTZRJqmYfFOZmq2czZ4x8v1e=ouNx2Y8D6wg@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 07:37:04PM +1100, Balbir Singh wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 7:12 PM, Ram Pai <linuxram@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> > Once an address range is associated with an allocated pkey, it cannot be
> > reverted back to key-0. There is no valid reason for the above behavior.  On
> > the contrary applications need the ability to do so.
> >
> > The patch relaxes the restriction.
> 
> I looked at the code and my observation was going to be that we need
> to change mm_pkey_is_allocated. I still fail to understand what
> happens if pkey 0 is reserved? What is the default key is it the first
> available key? Assuming 0 is the default key may work and seems to
> work, but I am sure its mostly by accident. It would be nice, if we
> could have  a notion of the default key. I don't like the special
> meaning given to key 0 here. Remember on powerpc if 0 is reserved and
> UAMOR/AMOR does not allow modification because it's reserved, setting
> 0 will still fail

The linux pkey API, assumes pkey-0 is the default key. If no key is
explicitly associated with a page, the default key gets associated.
When a default key gets associated with a page, the permissions on the
page are not dictated by the permissions of the default key, but by the
permission of other bits in the pte; i.e _PAGE_RWX.

On powerpc, and AFAICT on x86, neither the hardware nor the hypervisor
reserves key-0. Hence the OS is free to use the key value, the
way it chooses. On Linux we choose to associate key-0 the special status
called default-key.

However I see your point. If some cpu architecture takes away key-0 from
Linux, than implementing the special status for key-0 on that
architecture can become challenging, though not impossible. That
architecture implementation can internally map key-0 value to some other
available key, and associate that key to the page. And offcourse make
sure that the hardware/MMU uses the pte's RWX bits to enforce
permissions, for that key.


-- 
Ram Pai

  reply	other threads:[~2018-03-09 19:54 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-03-09  8:12 Ram Pai
2018-03-09  8:37 ` Balbir Singh
2018-03-09 19:54   ` Ram Pai [this message]
2018-03-09  8:43 ` Ingo Molnar
2018-03-09 20:09   ` Ram Pai
2018-03-09 10:19 ` Michael Ellerman
2018-03-09 20:06   ` Ram Pai
2018-03-12 15:46     ` Dave Hansen
2018-03-09 11:04 ` Florian Weimer
2018-03-09 20:00   ` Ram Pai
2018-03-14  8:00     ` Florian Weimer
2018-03-14  8:05       ` Florian Weimer
2018-03-14 14:08       ` Dave Hansen
2018-03-09 22:40 ` Dave Hansen
2018-03-10  5:55   ` Ram Pai
2018-03-10  6:50     ` Dave Hansen

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20180309195435.GQ1060@ram.oc3035372033.ibm.com \
    --to=linuxram@us.ibm.com \
    --cc=Ulrich.Weigand@de.ibm.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=arnd@arndb.de \
    --cc=bauerman@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
    --cc=bsingharora@gmail.com \
    --cc=corbet@lwn.net \
    --cc=dave.hansen@intel.com \
    --cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
    --cc=fweimer@redhat.com \
    --cc=hbabu@us.ibm.com \
    --cc=khandual@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
    --cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
    --cc=msuchanek@suse.com \
    --cc=paulus@samba.org \
    --cc=x86@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox