Re: MPK: removing a pkey

[Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>]

On 11/22/2017 05:32 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 11/22/2017 08:21 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> On 11/22/2017 05:10 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
>>> On 11/22/2017 04:15 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>>>> On 11/22/2017 09:18 AM, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>>>>> And, was the pkey == -1 internal wiring supposed to be exposed to the
>>>>> pkey_mprotect() signal, or should there have been a pre-check returning
>>>>> EINVAL in SYSCALL_DEFINE4(pkey_mprotect), before calling
>>>>> do_mprotect_pkey())? I assume it's too late to change it now anyway (or
>>>>> not?), so should we also document it?
>>>>
>>>> I think the -1 case to the set the default key is useful because it
>>>> allows you to use a key value of -1 to mean a??MPK is not supporteda??, and
>>>> still call pkey_mprotect.
>>>
>>> The behavior to not allow 0 to be set was unintentional and is a bug.
>>> We should fix that.
>>
>> On the other hand, x86-64 has no single default protection key due to
>> the PROT_EXEC emulation.
> 
> No, the default is clearly 0 and documented to be so.  The PROT_EXEC
> emulation one should be inaccessible in all the APIs so does not even
> show up as *being* a key in the API.  The fact that it's implemented
> with pkeys should be pretty immaterial other than the fact that you
> can't touch the high bits in PKRU.

So, just to be sure, if we call pkey_mprotect() with 0, will it blindly
set 0, or the result of arch_override_mprotect_pkey() (thus equivalent
to call with -1) ? I assume the latter?

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>