Re: [PATCH 6/9] x86, pkeys: add pkey set/get syscalls

[Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>]

On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 05:47:28AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> 
> From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
> 
> This establishes two more system calls for protection key management:
> 
> 	unsigned long pkey_get(int pkey);
> 	int pkey_set(int pkey, unsigned long access_rights);
> 
> The return value from pkey_get() and the 'access_rights' passed
> to pkey_set() are the same format: a bitmask containing
> PKEY_DENY_WRITE and/or PKEY_DENY_ACCESS, or nothing set at all.
> 
> These can replace userspace's direct use of the new rdpkru/wrpkru
> instructions.
> 
> With current hardware, the kernel can not enforce that it has
> control over a given key.  But, this at least allows the kernel
> to indicate to userspace that userspace does not control a given
> protection key.  This makes it more likely that situations like
> using a pkey after sys_pkey_free() can be detected.
> 
> The kernel does _not_ enforce that this interface must be used for
> changes to PKRU, whether or not a key has been "allocated".
> 
> This syscall interface could also theoretically be replaced with a
> pair of vsyscalls.  The vsyscalls would just call WRPKRU/RDPKRU
> directly in situations where they are drop-in equivalents for
> what the kernel would be doing.
> 

This one feels like something that can or should be implemented in
glibc.

There is no real enforcement of the values yet looking them up or
setting them takes mmap_sem for write. Applications that frequently get
called will get hammed into the ground with serialisation on mmap_sem
not to mention the cost of the syscall entry/exit.

RIght now, I'm seeing a lot of cost and not much benefit with this
specific patch.

-- 
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs

--
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>