From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qt0-f199.google.com (mail-qt0-f199.google.com [209.85.216.199]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C38366B0005 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2018 14:54:56 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-qt0-f199.google.com with SMTP id h21so7515923qtm.22 for ; Fri, 09 Mar 2018 11:54:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com. [148.163.156.1]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id v4si1394078qka.230.2018.03.09.11.54.55 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 09 Mar 2018 11:54:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from pps.filterd (m0098404.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id w29Jsq5v055070 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2018 14:54:54 -0500 Received: from e06smtp13.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp13.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.109]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2gm0t8023p-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA256 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Fri, 09 Mar 2018 14:54:53 -0500 Received: from localhost by e06smtp13.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Fri, 9 Mar 2018 19:54:48 -0000 Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 11:54:35 -0800 From: Ram Pai Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86, powerpc : pkey-mprotect must allow pkey-0 Reply-To: Ram Pai References: <1520583161-11741-1-git-send-email-linuxram@us.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <20180309195435.GQ1060@ram.oc3035372033.ibm.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Balbir Singh Cc: Michael Ellerman , Ingo Molnar , "akpm@linux-foundation.org" , "open list:LINUX FOR POWERPC (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" , linux-mm , "maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" , linux-arch , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Dave Hansen , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Paul Mackerras , Anshuman Khandual , Aneesh Kumar KV , Haren Myneni/Beaverton/IBM , Michal Hocko , Thiago Jung Bauermann , "Eric W. Biederman" , Jonathan Corbet , Arnd Bergmann , fweimer@redhat.com, msuchanek@suse.com, Ulrich.Weigand@de.ibm.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 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