From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f69.google.com (mail-wm0-f69.google.com [74.125.82.69]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AB6D6B000D for ; Mon, 11 Jun 2018 13:23:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-wm0-f69.google.com with SMTP id a7-v6so5334686wmg.0 for ; Mon, 11 Jun 2018 10:23:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com. [148.163.156.1]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id b26-v6si626907edr.445.2018.06.11.10.23.17 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 11 Jun 2018 10:23:18 -0700 (PDT) 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 w5BHJCjq100533 for ; Mon, 11 Jun 2018 13:23:16 -0400 Received: from e06smtp01.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp01.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.97]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2jhu83pj52-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Mon, 11 Jun 2018 13:23:16 -0400 Received: from localhost by e06smtp01.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Mon, 11 Jun 2018 18:23:13 +0100 Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2018 10:23:05 -0700 From: Ram Pai Subject: Re: pkeys on POWER: Access rights not reset on execve Reply-To: Ram Pai References: <20180520191115.GM5479@ram.oc3035372033.ibm.com> <20180603201832.GA10109@ram.oc3035372033.ibm.com> <4e53b91f-80a7-816a-3e9b-56d7be7cd092@redhat.com> <20180604140135.GA10088@ram.oc3035372033.ibm.com> <20180604190229.GB10088@ram.oc3035372033.ibm.com> <30040030-1aa2-623b-beec-dd1ceb3eb9a7@redhat.com> <20180608023441.GA5573@ram.oc3035372033.ibm.com> <2858a8eb-c9b5-42ce-5cfc-74a4b3ad6aa9@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <2858a8eb-c9b5-42ce-5cfc-74a4b3ad6aa9@redhat.com> Message-Id: <20180611172305.GB5697@ram.oc3035372033.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Florian Weimer Cc: Linux-MM , linuxppc-dev , Andy Lutomirski , Dave Hansen On Fri, Jun 08, 2018 at 07:53:51AM +0200, Florian Weimer 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. Are you referring to the thread '[PATCH] pkeys: Introduce PKEY_ALLOC_SIGNALINHERIT and change signal semantics' If yes, I will wait for your next version of the patch. Otherwise please point me to the URL of that thread. Sorry and thankx. :) RP