lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Mar]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] x86, powerpc : pkey-mprotect must allow pkey-0
From
Date
On 03/14/2018 09:00 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 03/09/2018 09:00 PM, Ram Pai wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 12:04:49PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
>>> On 03/09/2018 09:12 AM, Ram Pai wrote:
>>>> Once an address range is associated with an allocated pkey, it
>>>> cannot be
>>>> reverted back to key-0. There is no valid reason for the above
>>>> behavior.
>>>
>>> mprotect without a key does not necessarily use key 0, e.g. if
>>> protection keys are used to emulate page protection flag combination
>>> which is not directly supported by the hardware.
>>>
>>> Therefore, it seems to me that filtering out non-allocated keys is
>>> the right thing to do.
>>
>> I am not sure, what you mean. Do you agree with the patch or otherwise?
>
> I think it's inconsistent to make key 0 allocated, but not the key which
> is used for PROT_EXEC emulation, which is still reserved.  Even if you
> change the key 0 behavior, it is still not possible to emulate mprotect
> behavior faithfully with an allocated key.

Ugh. Should have read the code first before replying:

/* Do we need to assign a pkey for mm's execute-only maps? */
if (execute_only_pkey == -1) {
/* Go allocate one to use, which might fail */
execute_only_pkey = mm_pkey_alloc(mm);
if (execute_only_pkey < 0)
return -1;
need_to_set_mm_pkey = true;
}

So we do allocate the PROT_EXEC-only key, and I assume it means that the
key can be restored using pkey_mprotect. So the key 0 behavior is a
true exception after all, and it makes sense to realign the behavior
with the other keys.

Thanks,
Florian

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-03-14 09:06    [W:0.054 / U:2.288 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site