Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1296275
| From | Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: Rethinking sigcontext's xfeatures slightly for PKRU's benefit? |
| Date | 2015-12-22 00:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qIhAS-46k-15@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | (12 earlier) <qHb4t-2GQ-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <qHbHb-3aG-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <qHcjU-3Fb-17@gated-at.bofh.it> <qHctz-3Iq-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <qIc8a-Ry-17@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Dec 22, 2015 2:04 AM, "Dave Hansen" <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > On 12/18/2015 03:16 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > > Hrm. We might also want an option to change pkru and/or baseline_pkru > > in all threads in the current mm. That's optional but it could be > > handy. Maybe it would be as simple as having the allocate-a-pkey call > > have an option to set an initial baseline value and an option to > > propagate that initial value to pre-existing threads. > > Do you mean actively going in and changing PKRU in other threads? I > fear that will be dangerous. > > IMNHO, whatever we do, I think we need to ensure that _raw_ PKRU calls > are allowed (somehow). Raw in this case would mean a thread calling > WRPKRU without a system call and without checking in with what any other > threads are doing. > > Let's say baseline_pkru=0x004 (we're access-disabling PKEY[1] and using > it for execute-only). Now, a thread is trying to do this: > > pkey2 = sys_pkey_alloc(); // now pkey2=2 > tmp = rdpkru(); // 0x004 > tmp |= 0x10; // set PKRU[2].AD=1 > wrpkru(tmp); > > While another thread does: > > pkey4 = pkey_alloc(); // pkey4=4 > sys_pkey_set(pkey4, ACCESS_DISABLE, SET_BASELINE_ALL_THREADS); > > Without some kind of locking, that's going to race. We could do all the > locking in the kernel, but that requires that the kernel do all the PKRU > writing, which I'd really like to avoid. > > I think the closest we can get reasonably is to have the kernel track > the baseline_pkru and then allow userspace to query it in case userspace > decides that thread needs to update its thread-local PKRU from the baseline. Yeah, fair point. Let's skip the modify-other-threads thing. Perhaps this is silly, but what if the default were changed to deny reads and writes for unallocated keys? Is there a use case that breaks? --Andy -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Rethinking sigcontext's xfeatures slightly for PKRU's benefit? Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org> - 2015-12-18 02:50 +0100
Re: Rethinking sigcontext's xfeatures slightly for PKRU's benefit? Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com> - 2015-12-18 03:20 +0100
Re: Rethinking sigcontext's xfeatures slightly for PKRU's benefit? Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> - 2015-12-18 03:40 +0100
Re: Rethinking sigcontext's xfeatures slightly for PKRU's benefit? Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com> - 2015-12-18 04:00 +0100
Re: Rethinking sigcontext's xfeatures slightly for PKRU's benefit? Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> - 2015-12-18 06:30 +0100
Re: Rethinking sigcontext's xfeatures slightly for PKRU's benefit? "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com> - 2015-12-18 07:50 +0100
Re: Rethinking sigcontext's xfeatures slightly for PKRU's benefit? Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> - 2015-12-18 17:10 +0100
Re: Rethinking sigcontext's xfeatures slightly for PKRU's benefit? Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com> - 2015-12-18 18:00 +0100
Re: Rethinking sigcontext's xfeatures slightly for PKRU's benefit? Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com> - 2015-12-18 19:50 +0100
Re: Rethinking sigcontext's xfeatures slightly for PKRU's benefit? Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> - 2015-12-18 20:30 +0100
Re: Rethinking sigcontext's xfeatures slightly for PKRU's benefit? Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com> - 2015-12-18 21:10 +0100
Re: Rethinking sigcontext's xfeatures slightly for PKRU's benefit? Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> - 2015-12-18 21:30 +0100
Re: Rethinking sigcontext's xfeatures slightly for PKRU's benefit? Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> - 2015-12-18 21:40 +0100
Re: Rethinking sigcontext's xfeatures slightly for PKRU's benefit? Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> - 2015-12-18 21:50 +0100
Re: Rethinking sigcontext's xfeatures slightly for PKRU's benefit? "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com> - 2015-12-18 22:00 +0100
Re: Rethinking sigcontext's xfeatures slightly for PKRU's benefit? Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> - 2015-12-18 22:10 +0100
Re: Rethinking sigcontext's xfeatures slightly for PKRU's benefit? Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com> - 2015-12-18 22:10 +0100
Re: Rethinking sigcontext's xfeatures slightly for PKRU's benefit? Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> - 2015-12-18 22:10 +0100
Re: Rethinking sigcontext's xfeatures slightly for PKRU's benefit? Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com> - 2015-12-18 22:20 +0100
Re: Rethinking sigcontext's xfeatures slightly for PKRU's benefit? Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> - 2015-12-18 22:50 +0100
Re: Rethinking sigcontext's xfeatures slightly for PKRU's benefit? Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> - 2015-12-18 23:30 +0100
Re: Rethinking sigcontext's xfeatures slightly for PKRU's benefit? Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> - 2015-12-19 00:10 +0100
Re: Rethinking sigcontext's xfeatures slightly for PKRU's benefit? Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> - 2015-12-19 00:20 +0100
Re: Rethinking sigcontext's xfeatures slightly for PKRU's benefit? Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> - 2015-12-19 00:30 +0100
Re: Rethinking sigcontext's xfeatures slightly for PKRU's benefit? Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com> - 2015-12-21 18:10 +0100
Re: Rethinking sigcontext's xfeatures slightly for PKRU's benefit? Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> - 2015-12-22 00:00 +0100
Re: Rethinking sigcontext's xfeatures slightly for PKRU's benefit? Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com> - 2015-12-22 00:10 +0100
Re: Rethinking sigcontext's xfeatures slightly for PKRU's benefit? Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> - 2015-12-22 00:10 +0100
Re: Rethinking sigcontext's xfeatures slightly for PKRU's benefit? Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com> - 2015-12-22 00:10 +0100
Re: Rethinking sigcontext's xfeatures slightly for PKRU's benefit? Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com> - 2015-12-22 00:10 +0100
Re: Rethinking sigcontext's xfeatures slightly for PKRU's benefit? Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> - 2015-12-22 00:10 +0100
Re: Rethinking sigcontext's xfeatures slightly for PKRU's benefit? Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com> - 2015-12-30 00:50 +0100
Re: Rethinking sigcontext's xfeatures slightly for PKRU's benefit? Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> - 2015-12-18 22:20 +0100
Re: Rethinking sigcontext's xfeatures slightly for PKRU's benefit? Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> - 2015-12-18 09:40 +0100
Re: Rethinking sigcontext's xfeatures slightly for PKRU's benefit? Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> - 2015-12-18 10:00 +0100
Re: Rethinking sigcontext's xfeatures slightly for PKRU's benefit? Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> - 2015-12-18 14:00 +0100
csiph-web