From: Ram Pai <linuxram@us.ibm.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
Cc: Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
x86@kernel.org, linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-x86_64@vger.kernel.org,
Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: pkeys: Support setting access rights for signal handlers
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 15:13:24 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171212231324.GE5460@ram.oc3035372033.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <aa4d127f-0315-3ac9-3fdf-1f0a89cf60b8@intel.com>
On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 08:13:12AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 12/09/2017 10:42 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> >> My only nit with this is whether it is the *right* interface. The
> >> signal vs. XSAVE state thing is pretty x86 specific and I doubt
> >> that this will be the last feature that we encounter that needs
> >> special signal behavior.
> >
> > The interface is not specific to XSAVE. To generic code, only the
> > two signal mask manipulation functions are exposed. And I expect
> > that we're going to need that for other (non-x86) implementations
> > because they will have the same issue because the signal handler
> > behavior will be identical.
>
> Let's check with the other implementation...
>
> Ram, this is a question about the signal handler behavior on POWER. I
> thought you ended up having different behavior in signal handlers than x86.
On POWER, the value of the pkey_read() i.e contents the AMR
register(pkru equivalent), is always the same regardless of its
context; signal handler or not.
In other words, the permission of any allocated key will not
reset in a signal handler context.
I was not aware that x86 would reset the key permissions in signal
handler. I think, the proposed behavior for PKEY_ALLOC_SETSIGNAL should
actually be the default behavior.
RP
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-12-12 23:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-12-09 21:16 pkeys: Support setting access rights for signal handlers Florian Weimer
[not found] ` <5fee976a-42d4-d469-7058-b78ad8897219-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
2017-12-10 0:17 ` Dave Hansen
2017-12-10 6:42 ` Florian Weimer
2017-12-11 16:13 ` Dave Hansen
2017-12-12 23:13 ` Ram Pai [this message]
2017-12-13 2:14 ` Florian Weimer
2017-12-13 11:35 ` Ram Pai
[not found] ` <20171213113544.GG5460-LOE2q6NSToAxGrZ80giIafUQ3DHhIser@public.gmane.org>
2017-12-13 15:08 ` Florian Weimer
2017-12-13 15:22 ` Dave Hansen
2017-12-13 15:40 ` Florian Weimer
2017-12-14 0:17 ` Ram Pai
2017-12-14 11:21 ` Florian Weimer
2017-12-16 15:09 ` Ram Pai
2017-12-16 15:25 ` Florian Weimer
[not found] ` <2eba29f4-804d-b211-1293-52a567739cad-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
2017-12-16 17:20 ` Ram Pai
2017-12-18 11:00 ` Florian Weimer
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20171212231324.GE5460@ram.oc3035372033.ibm.com \
--to=linuxram@us.ibm.com \
--cc=dave.hansen@intel.com \
--cc=fweimer@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-api@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linux-x86_64@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).