From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Dave Hansen <dave-gkUM19QKKo4@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/9] mm: implement new pkey_mprotect() system call
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2016 09:03:36 -0700
Message-ID: <575ED958.5060209@sr71.net>
References: <20160609000117.71AC7623@viggo.jf.intel.com>
 <20160609000120.A3DD5140@viggo.jf.intel.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.11.1606111147000.5839@nanos>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-api-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1606111147000.5839@nanos>
Sender: linux-api-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx-hfZtesqFncYOwBW4kG4KsQ@public.gmane.org>
Cc: linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, x86-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org, linux-api-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-arch-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-mm-Bw31MaZKKs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org, torvalds-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org, akpm-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org, dave.hansen-VuQAYsv1563Yd54FQh9/CA@public.gmane.org
List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org

On 06/11/2016 02:47 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Jun 2016, Dave Hansen wrote:
>> > Proposed semantics:
>> > 1. protection key 0 is special and represents the default,
>> >    unassigned protection key.  It is always allocated.
>> > 2. mprotect() never affects a mapping's pkey_mprotect()-assigned
>> >    protection key. A protection key of 0 (even if set explicitly)
>> >    represents an unassigned protection key.
>> >    2a. mprotect(PROT_EXEC) on a mapping with an assigned protection
>> >        key may or may not result in a mapping with execute-only
>> >        properties.  pkey_mprotect() plus pkey_set() on all threads
>> >        should be used to _guarantee_ execute-only semantics.
>> > 3. mprotect(PROT_EXEC) may result in an "execute-only" mapping. The
>> >    kernel will internally attempt to allocate and dedicate a
>> >    protection key for the purpose of execute-only mappings.  This
>> >    may not be possible in cases where there are no free protection
>> >    keys available.
> Shouldn't we just reserve a protection key for PROT_EXEC unconditionally?

Normal userspace does not do PROT_EXEC today.  So, today, we'd
effectively lose one of our keys by reserving it.  Of the folks I've
talked to who really want this feature, and *will* actually use it, one
of the most common complaints is that there are too few keys.

Folks who actively *want* true PROT_EXEC semantics can use the explicit
pkey interfaces.