From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
To: linuxram@us.ibm.com
Cc: Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>,
linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
Subject: Re: pkeys on POWER: Default AMR, UAMOR values
Date: Fri, 18 May 2018 12:39:46 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CALCETrV_wYPKHna8R2Bu19nsDqF2dJWarLLsyHxbcYD_AgYfPg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180518174448.GE5479@ram.oc3035372033.ibm.com>
On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 10:45 AM Ram Pai <linuxram@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 03:17:14PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > I'm working on adding POWER pkeys support to glibc. The coding work
> > is done, but I'm faced with some test suite failures.
> >
> > Unlike the default x86 configuration, on POWER, existing threads
> > have full access to newly allocated keys.
> >
> > Or, more precisely, in this scenario:
> >
> > * Thread A launches thread B
> > * Thread B waits
> > * Thread A allocations a protection key with pkey_alloc
> > * Thread A applies the key to a page
> > * Thread A signals thread B
> > * Thread B starts to run and accesses the page
> >
> > Then at the end, the access will be granted.
> >
> > I hope it's not too late to change this to denied access.
> >
> > Furthermore, I think the UAMOR value is wrong as well because it
> > prevents thread B at the end to set the AMR register. In
> > particular, if I do this
> >
> > * … (as before)
> > * Thread A signals thread B
> > * Thread B sets the access rights for the key to PKEY_DISABLE_ACCESS
> > * Thread B reads the current access rights for the key
> >
> > then it still gets 0 (all access permitted) because the original
> > UAMOR value inherited from thread A prior to the key allocation
> > masks out the access right update for the newly allocated key.
> Florian, is the behavior on x86 any different? A key allocated in the
> context off one thread is not meaningful in the context of any other
> thread.
The difference is that x86 starts out with deny-all instead of allow-all.
The POWER semantics make it very hard for a multithreaded program to
meaningfully use protection keys to prevent accidental access to important
memory.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-05-18 19:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-05-18 13:17 Florian Weimer
2018-05-18 14:35 ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-05-18 17:44 ` Ram Pai
2018-05-18 19:39 ` Andy Lutomirski [this message]
2018-05-18 21:13 ` Florian Weimer
2018-05-19 0:52 ` Ram Pai
2018-05-19 5:15 ` Florian Weimer
2018-05-18 21:09 ` 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=CALCETrV_wYPKHna8R2Bu19nsDqF2dJWarLLsyHxbcYD_AgYfPg@mail.gmail.com \
--to=luto@amacapital.net \
--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 \
/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