linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Michal Suchánek" <msuchanek@suse.de>
To: Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>
Cc: Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>, Ram Pai <linuxram@us.ibm.com>,
	linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
Subject: Re: pkeys on POWER: Access rights not reset on execve
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2018 15:49:54 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180608154954.327c19be@kitsune.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f440aaa4-0a55-3ccd-2df1-2ad595e9e17a@redhat.com>

On Fri, 8 Jun 2018 14:57:06 +0200
Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com> wrote:

> On 06/08/2018 02:54 PM, Michal Suchánek wrote:
> > On Fri, 8 Jun 2018 12:44:53 +0200
> > Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com> wrote:
> >   
> >> On 06/08/2018 12:15 PM, Michal Suchánek wrote:  
> >>> On Fri, 8 Jun 2018 07:53:51 +0200
> >>> Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com> wrote:
> >>>      
> >>>> On 06/08/2018 04:34 AM, Ram Pai wrote:  
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> So the remaining question at this point is whether the Intel
> >>>>>> behavior (default-deny instead of default-allow) is
> >>>>>> preferable.  
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Florian, remind me what behavior needs to fixed?  
> >>>>
> >>>> See the other thread.  The Intel register equivalent to the AMR
> >>>> by default disallows access to yet-unallocated keys, so that
> >>>> threads which are created before key allocation do not magically
> >>>> gain access to a key allocated by another thread.
> >>>>     
> >>>
> >>> That does not make any sense. The threads share the address space
> >>> so they should also share the keys.
> >>>
> >>> Or in other words the keys are supposed to be acceleration of
> >>> mprotect() so if mprotect() magically gives access to threads that
> >>> did not call it so should pkey functions. If they cannot do that
> >>> then they fail the primary purpose.  
> >>
> >> That's not how protection keys work.  The access rights are
> >> thread-specific, so that you can change them locally, without
> >> synchronization and expensive inter-node communication.
> >>  
> > 
> > And the association of a key with part of the address space is
> > thread-local as well?  
> 
> No, that part is still per-process.

So as said above it does not make sense to make keys per-thread.

Thanks

Michal

  reply	other threads:[~2018-06-08 13:49 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-05-18 14:27 Florian Weimer
2018-05-19  1:19 ` Ram Pai
2018-05-19  1:50   ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-05-19  5:26     ` Florian Weimer
2018-05-19 20:27     ` Ram Pai
2018-05-19 23:47       ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-05-20  6:04         ` Ram Pai
2018-05-20  6:06           ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-05-20 19:11             ` Ram Pai
2018-05-21 11:29               ` Florian Weimer
2018-06-03 20:18                 ` Ram Pai
2018-06-04 10:12                   ` Florian Weimer
2018-06-04 14:01                     ` Ram Pai
2018-06-04 17:57                       ` Florian Weimer
2018-06-04 19:02                         ` Ram Pai
2018-06-04 21:00                           ` Florian Weimer
2018-06-08  2:34                             ` Ram Pai
2018-06-08  5:53                               ` Florian Weimer
2018-06-08 10:15                                 ` Michal Suchánek
2018-06-08 10:44                                   ` Florian Weimer
2018-06-08 12:54                                     ` Michal Suchánek
2018-06-08 12:57                                       ` Florian Weimer
2018-06-08 13:49                                         ` Michal Suchánek [this message]
2018-06-08 13:51                                           ` Florian Weimer
2018-06-08 14:17                                             ` Michal Suchánek
2018-06-11 17:23                                 ` Ram Pai
2018-06-11 17:29                                   ` Florian Weimer
2018-06-11 20:08                                     ` Ram Pai
2018-06-12 12:17                                       ` Florian Weimer
2018-05-19  5:12   ` Florian Weimer
2018-05-19 11:11   ` Florian Weimer

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=20180608154954.327c19be@kitsune.suse.cz \
    --to=msuchanek@suse.de \
    --cc=dave.hansen@intel.com \
    --cc=fweimer@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
    --cc=linuxram@us.ibm.com \
    --cc=luto@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