From: Ram Pai <linuxram@us.ibm.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
tglx@linutronix.de, dave.hansen@intel.com, mpe@ellerman.id.au,
mingo@kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, shuah@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] x86, pkeys: do not special case protection key 0
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2018 16:24:25 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180317232425.GH1060@ram.oc3035372033.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180316214656.0E059008@viggo.jf.intel.com>
On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 02:46:56PM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
>
> From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
>
> mm_pkey_is_allocated() treats pkey 0 as unallocated. That is
> inconsistent with the manpages, and also inconsistent with
> mm->context.pkey_allocation_map. Stop special casing it and only
> disallow values that are actually bad (< 0).
>
> The end-user visible effect of this is that you can now use
> mprotect_pkey() to set pkey=0.
>
> This is a bit nicer than what Ram proposed because it is simpler
> and removes special-casing for pkey 0. On the other hand, it does
> allow applciations to pkey_free() pkey-0, but that's just a silly
> thing to do, so we are not going to protect against it.
So your proposal
(a) allocates pkey 0 implicitly,
(b) does not stop anyone from freeing pkey-0
(c) and allows pkey-0 to be explicitly associated with any address range.
correct?
My proposal
(a) allocates pkey 0 implicitly,
(b) stops anyone from freeing pkey-0
(c) and allows pkey-0 to be explicitly associated with any address range.
So the difference between the two proposals is just the freeing part i.e (b).
Did I get this right?
Its a philosophical debate; allow the user
to shoot-in-the-feet or stop from not doing so. There is no
clear answer either way. I am fine either way.
So here is my
Reviewed-by: Ram Pai <linuxram@us.ibm.com>
I will write a corresponding patch for powerpc.
>
> Signed-off-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
> Cc: Ram Pai <linuxram@us.ibm.com>
> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
> Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
> Cc: Michael Ellermen <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>p
> Cc: Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>
> ---
>
> b/arch/x86/include/asm/mmu_context.h | 2 +-
> b/arch/x86/include/asm/pkeys.h | 6 +++---
> 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff -puN arch/x86/include/asm/mmu_context.h~x86-pkey-0-default-allocated arch/x86/include/asm/mmu_context.h
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/mmu_context.h~x86-pkey-0-default-allocated 2018-03-16 14:46:39.023285476 -0700
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/mmu_context.h 2018-03-16 14:46:39.028285476 -0700
> @@ -191,7 +191,7 @@ static inline int init_new_context(struc
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_X86_INTEL_MEMORY_PROTECTION_KEYS
> if (cpu_feature_enabled(X86_FEATURE_OSPKE)) {
> - /* pkey 0 is the default and always allocated */
> + /* pkey 0 is the default and allocated implicitly */
> mm->context.pkey_allocation_map = 0x1;
> /* -1 means unallocated or invalid */
> mm->context.execute_only_pkey = -1;
> diff -puN arch/x86/include/asm/pkeys.h~x86-pkey-0-default-allocated arch/x86/include/asm/pkeys.h
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/pkeys.h~x86-pkey-0-default-allocated 2018-03-16 14:46:39.025285476 -0700
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/pkeys.h 2018-03-16 14:46:39.028285476 -0700
> @@ -49,10 +49,10 @@ bool mm_pkey_is_allocated(struct mm_stru
> {
> /*
> * "Allocated" pkeys are those that have been returned
> - * from pkey_alloc(). pkey 0 is special, and never
> - * returned from pkey_alloc().
> + * from pkey_alloc() or pkey 0 which is allocated
> + * implicitly when the mm is created.
> */
> - if (pkey <= 0)
> + if (pkey < 0)
> return false;
> if (pkey >= arch_max_pkey())
> return false;
> _
--
Ram Pai
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-03-17 23:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-03-16 21:46 [PATCH 0/3] x86, pkeys: make pkey 0 more normal Dave Hansen
2018-03-16 21:46 ` [PATCH 1/3] x86, pkeys: do not special case protection key 0 Dave Hansen
2018-03-17 9:12 ` Thomas Gleixner
2018-03-17 16:01 ` Dave Hansen
2018-03-17 19:05 ` Thomas Gleixner
2018-03-19 5:50 ` Michael Ellerman
2018-03-17 23:24 ` Ram Pai [this message]
2018-03-18 0:49 ` Dave Hansen
2018-03-18 9:30 ` Thomas Gleixner
2018-03-18 23:46 ` Ram Pai
2018-03-16 21:46 ` [PATCH 2/3] x86, pkeys, selftests: save off 'prot' for allocations Dave Hansen
2018-03-16 21:46 ` [PATCH 3/3] x86, pkeys, selftests: add a test for pkey 0 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=20180317232425.GH1060@ram.oc3035372033.ibm.com \
--to=linuxram@us.ibm.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dave.hansen@intel.com \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
--cc=shuah@kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/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