lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Mar]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/3] x86, pkeys: do not special case protection key 0
On Sat, 17 Mar 2018, Ram Pai wrote:
> 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?

Yes, and that's consistent with the other pkeys.

> 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.

The user can shoot himself already with the other pkeys, so adding another
one does not matter and is again consistent.

Thanks,

tglx

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-03-18 10:31    [W:0.054 / U:1.080 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site