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 Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 10:30:48AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> 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.
>

ok.

Yes it makes pkey-0 even more consistent with the other keys, but not
entirely consistent. pkey-0 still has the priviledge of being
allocated by default.


RP

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-03-19 00:47    [W:0.052 / U:0.100 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site