linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ram Pai <linuxram@us.ibm.com>
To: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, x86@kernel.org,
	linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org
Cc: benh@kernel.crashing.org, paulus@samba.org, mpe@ellerman.id.au,
	khandual@linux.vnet.ibm.com, aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
	bsingharora@gmail.com, dave.hansen@intel.com, hbabu@us.ibm.com,
	linuxram@us.ibm.com, arnd@arndb.de, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
	corbet@lwn.net, mingo@redhat.com
Subject: [RFC v5 37/38] Documentation: Move protecton key documentation to arch neutral directory
Date: Wed,  5 Jul 2017 14:22:14 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1499289735-14220-38-git-send-email-linuxram@us.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1499289735-14220-1-git-send-email-linuxram@us.ibm.com>

Since PowerPC and Intel both support memory protection keys, moving
the documenation to arch-neutral directory.

Signed-off-by: Ram Pai <linuxram@us.ibm.com>
---
 Documentation/vm/protection-keys.txt  |   85 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 Documentation/x86/protection-keys.txt |   85 ---------------------------------
 2 files changed, 85 insertions(+), 85 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 Documentation/vm/protection-keys.txt
 delete mode 100644 Documentation/x86/protection-keys.txt

diff --git a/Documentation/vm/protection-keys.txt b/Documentation/vm/protection-keys.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..b643045
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/vm/protection-keys.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,85 @@
+Memory Protection Keys for Userspace (PKU aka PKEYs) is a CPU feature
+which will be found on future Intel CPUs.
+
+Memory Protection Keys provides a mechanism for enforcing page-based
+protections, but without requiring modification of the page tables
+when an application changes protection domains.  It works by
+dedicating 4 previously ignored bits in each page table entry to a
+"protection key", giving 16 possible keys.
+
+There is also a new user-accessible register (PKRU) with two separate
+bits (Access Disable and Write Disable) for each key.  Being a CPU
+register, PKRU is inherently thread-local, potentially giving each
+thread a different set of protections from every other thread.
+
+There are two new instructions (RDPKRU/WRPKRU) for reading and writing
+to the new register.  The feature is only available in 64-bit mode,
+even though there is theoretically space in the PAE PTEs.  These
+permissions are enforced on data access only and have no effect on
+instruction fetches.
+
+=========================== Syscalls ===========================
+
+There are 3 system calls which directly interact with pkeys:
+
+	int pkey_alloc(unsigned long flags, unsigned long init_access_rights)
+	int pkey_free(int pkey);
+	int pkey_mprotect(unsigned long start, size_t len,
+			  unsigned long prot, int pkey);
+
+Before a pkey can be used, it must first be allocated with
+pkey_alloc().  An application calls the WRPKRU instruction
+directly in order to change access permissions to memory covered
+with a key.  In this example WRPKRU is wrapped by a C function
+called pkey_set().
+
+	int real_prot = PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE;
+	pkey = pkey_alloc(0, PKEY_DENY_WRITE);
+	ptr = mmap(NULL, PAGE_SIZE, PROT_NONE, MAP_ANONYMOUS|MAP_PRIVATE, -1, 0);
+	ret = pkey_mprotect(ptr, PAGE_SIZE, real_prot, pkey);
+	... application runs here
+
+Now, if the application needs to update the data at 'ptr', it can
+gain access, do the update, then remove its write access:
+
+	pkey_set(pkey, 0); // clear PKEY_DENY_WRITE
+	*ptr = foo; // assign something
+	pkey_set(pkey, PKEY_DENY_WRITE); // set PKEY_DENY_WRITE again
+
+Now when it frees the memory, it will also free the pkey since it
+is no longer in use:
+
+	munmap(ptr, PAGE_SIZE);
+	pkey_free(pkey);
+
+(Note: pkey_set() is a wrapper for the RDPKRU and WRPKRU instructions.
+ An example implementation can be found in
+ tools/testing/selftests/x86/protection_keys.c)
+
+=========================== Behavior ===========================
+
+The kernel attempts to make protection keys consistent with the
+behavior of a plain mprotect().  For instance if you do this:
+
+	mprotect(ptr, size, PROT_NONE);
+	something(ptr);
+
+you can expect the same effects with protection keys when doing this:
+
+	pkey = pkey_alloc(0, PKEY_DISABLE_WRITE | PKEY_DISABLE_READ);
+	pkey_mprotect(ptr, size, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE, pkey);
+	something(ptr);
+
+That should be true whether something() is a direct access to 'ptr'
+like:
+
+	*ptr = foo;
+
+or when the kernel does the access on the application's behalf like
+with a read():
+
+	read(fd, ptr, 1);
+
+The kernel will send a SIGSEGV in both cases, but si_code will be set
+to SEGV_PKERR when violating protection keys versus SEGV_ACCERR when
+the plain mprotect() permissions are violated.
diff --git a/Documentation/x86/protection-keys.txt b/Documentation/x86/protection-keys.txt
deleted file mode 100644
index b643045..0000000
--- a/Documentation/x86/protection-keys.txt
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,85 +0,0 @@
-Memory Protection Keys for Userspace (PKU aka PKEYs) is a CPU feature
-which will be found on future Intel CPUs.
-
-Memory Protection Keys provides a mechanism for enforcing page-based
-protections, but without requiring modification of the page tables
-when an application changes protection domains.  It works by
-dedicating 4 previously ignored bits in each page table entry to a
-"protection key", giving 16 possible keys.
-
-There is also a new user-accessible register (PKRU) with two separate
-bits (Access Disable and Write Disable) for each key.  Being a CPU
-register, PKRU is inherently thread-local, potentially giving each
-thread a different set of protections from every other thread.
-
-There are two new instructions (RDPKRU/WRPKRU) for reading and writing
-to the new register.  The feature is only available in 64-bit mode,
-even though there is theoretically space in the PAE PTEs.  These
-permissions are enforced on data access only and have no effect on
-instruction fetches.
-
-=========================== Syscalls ===========================
-
-There are 3 system calls which directly interact with pkeys:
-
-	int pkey_alloc(unsigned long flags, unsigned long init_access_rights)
-	int pkey_free(int pkey);
-	int pkey_mprotect(unsigned long start, size_t len,
-			  unsigned long prot, int pkey);
-
-Before a pkey can be used, it must first be allocated with
-pkey_alloc().  An application calls the WRPKRU instruction
-directly in order to change access permissions to memory covered
-with a key.  In this example WRPKRU is wrapped by a C function
-called pkey_set().
-
-	int real_prot = PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE;
-	pkey = pkey_alloc(0, PKEY_DENY_WRITE);
-	ptr = mmap(NULL, PAGE_SIZE, PROT_NONE, MAP_ANONYMOUS|MAP_PRIVATE, -1, 0);
-	ret = pkey_mprotect(ptr, PAGE_SIZE, real_prot, pkey);
-	... application runs here
-
-Now, if the application needs to update the data at 'ptr', it can
-gain access, do the update, then remove its write access:
-
-	pkey_set(pkey, 0); // clear PKEY_DENY_WRITE
-	*ptr = foo; // assign something
-	pkey_set(pkey, PKEY_DENY_WRITE); // set PKEY_DENY_WRITE again
-
-Now when it frees the memory, it will also free the pkey since it
-is no longer in use:
-
-	munmap(ptr, PAGE_SIZE);
-	pkey_free(pkey);
-
-(Note: pkey_set() is a wrapper for the RDPKRU and WRPKRU instructions.
- An example implementation can be found in
- tools/testing/selftests/x86/protection_keys.c)
-
-=========================== Behavior ===========================
-
-The kernel attempts to make protection keys consistent with the
-behavior of a plain mprotect().  For instance if you do this:
-
-	mprotect(ptr, size, PROT_NONE);
-	something(ptr);
-
-you can expect the same effects with protection keys when doing this:
-
-	pkey = pkey_alloc(0, PKEY_DISABLE_WRITE | PKEY_DISABLE_READ);
-	pkey_mprotect(ptr, size, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE, pkey);
-	something(ptr);
-
-That should be true whether something() is a direct access to 'ptr'
-like:
-
-	*ptr = foo;
-
-or when the kernel does the access on the application's behalf like
-with a read():
-
-	read(fd, ptr, 1);
-
-The kernel will send a SIGSEGV in both cases, but si_code will be set
-to SEGV_PKERR when violating protection keys versus SEGV_ACCERR when
-the plain mprotect() permissions are violated.
-- 
1.7.1

--
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>

  parent reply	other threads:[~2017-07-05 21:24 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 92+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-07-05 21:21 [RFC v5 00/38] powerpc: Memory Protection Keys Ram Pai
2017-07-05 21:21 ` [RFC v5 01/38] powerpc: Free up four 64K PTE bits in 4K backed HPTE pages Ram Pai
2017-07-07  7:25   ` Balbir Singh
2017-07-05 21:21 ` [RFC v5 02/38] powerpc: Free up four 64K PTE bits in 64K " Ram Pai
2017-07-11  5:59   ` Balbir Singh
2017-07-11 15:44     ` Ram Pai
2017-07-12  3:10       ` Balbir Singh
2017-07-13  7:39         ` Ram Pai
2017-07-05 21:21 ` [RFC v5 03/38] powerpc: introduce pte_set_hash_slot() helper Ram Pai
2017-07-05 21:21 ` [RFC v5 04/38] powerpc: introduce pte_get_hash_gslot() helper Ram Pai
2017-07-05 21:21 ` [RFC v5 05/38] powerpc: capture the PTE format changes in the dump pte report Ram Pai
2017-07-05 21:21 ` [RFC v5 06/38] powerpc: use helper functions in __hash_page_64K() for 64K PTE Ram Pai
2017-07-05 21:21 ` [RFC v5 07/38] powerpc: use helper functions in __hash_page_huge() " Ram Pai
2017-07-05 21:21 ` [RFC v5 08/38] powerpc: use helper functions in __hash_page_4K() " Ram Pai
2017-07-05 21:21 ` [RFC v5 09/38] powerpc: use helper functions in __hash_page_4K() for 4K PTE Ram Pai
2017-07-05 21:21 ` [RFC v5 10/38] powerpc: use helper functions in flush_hash_page() Ram Pai
2017-07-05 21:21 ` [RFC v5 11/38] mm: introduce an additional vma bit for powerpc pkey Ram Pai
2017-07-11 18:10   ` Dave Hansen
2017-07-12 22:23     ` Ram Pai
2017-07-12 22:40       ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2017-07-05 21:21 ` [RFC v5 12/38] mm: ability to disable execute permission on a key at creation Ram Pai
2017-07-11 18:11   ` Dave Hansen
2017-07-11 21:29     ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2017-07-11 21:51       ` Ram Pai
2017-07-11 21:57         ` Dave Hansen
2017-07-11 22:14           ` Ram Pai
2017-07-11 22:19             ` Dave Hansen
2017-07-11 22:08         ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2017-07-11 22:19           ` Ram Pai
2017-07-05 21:21 ` [RFC v5 13/38] x86: disallow pkey creation with PKEY_DISABLE_EXECUTE Ram Pai
2017-07-11 18:12   ` Dave Hansen
2017-07-05 21:21 ` [RFC v5 14/38] powerpc: initial plumbing for key management Ram Pai
2017-07-12  3:28   ` Balbir Singh
2017-07-13  7:45     ` Ram Pai
2017-07-13 20:37       ` Ram Pai
2017-07-13 21:30         ` Balbir Singh
2017-07-05 21:21 ` [RFC v5 15/38] powerpc: helper function to read,write AMR,IAMR,UAMOR registers Ram Pai
2017-07-12  5:26   ` Balbir Singh
2017-07-13  7:55     ` Ram Pai
2017-07-13  9:49       ` Balbir Singh
2017-07-13 23:29         ` Ram Pai
2017-07-05 21:21 ` [RFC v5 16/38] powerpc: implementation for arch_set_user_pkey_access() Ram Pai
2017-07-05 21:21 ` [RFC v5 17/38] powerpc: sys_pkey_alloc() and sys_pkey_free() system calls Ram Pai
2017-07-05 21:21 ` [RFC v5 18/38] powerpc: store and restore the pkey state across context switches Ram Pai
2017-07-05 21:21 ` [RFC v5 19/38] powerpc: introduce execute-only pkey Ram Pai
2017-07-05 21:21 ` [RFC v5 20/38] powerpc: ability to associate pkey to a vma Ram Pai
2017-07-05 21:21 ` [RFC v5 21/38] powerpc: implementation for arch_override_mprotect_pkey() Ram Pai
2017-07-05 21:21 ` [RFC v5 22/38] powerpc: map vma key-protection bits to pte key bits Ram Pai
2017-07-05 21:22 ` [RFC v5 23/38] powerpc: sys_pkey_mprotect() system call Ram Pai
2017-07-05 21:22 ` [RFC v5 24/38] powerpc: Program HPTE key protection bits Ram Pai
2017-07-05 21:22 ` [RFC v5 25/38] powerpc: helper to validate key-access permissions of a pte Ram Pai
2017-07-05 21:22 ` [RFC v5 26/38] powerpc: check key protection for user page access Ram Pai
2017-07-05 21:22 ` [RFC v5 27/38] powerpc: Macro the mask used for checking DSI exception Ram Pai
2017-07-05 21:22 ` [RFC v5 28/38] powerpc: implementation for arch_vma_access_permitted() Ram Pai
2017-07-05 21:22 ` [RFC v5 29/38] powerpc: Handle exceptions caused by pkey violation Ram Pai
2017-07-05 21:22 ` [RFC v5 30/38] powerpc: capture AMR register content on " Ram Pai
2017-07-05 21:22 ` [RFC v5 31/38] powerpc: introduce get_pte_pkey() helper Ram Pai
2017-07-10  3:11   ` Anshuman Khandual
2017-07-10  5:55     ` Ram Pai
2017-07-11 11:22       ` Anshuman Khandual
2017-07-05 21:22 ` [RFC v5 32/38] powerpc: capture the violated protection key on fault Ram Pai
2017-07-10  3:10   ` Anshuman Khandual
2017-07-10  5:49     ` Ram Pai
2017-07-05 21:22 ` [RFC v5 33/38] powerpc: Deliver SEGV signal on pkey violation Ram Pai
2017-07-10  3:08   ` Anshuman Khandual
2017-07-05 21:22 ` [RFC v5 34/38] procfs: display the protection-key number associated with a vma Ram Pai
2017-07-10  3:07   ` Anshuman Khandual
2017-07-10  6:01     ` Ram Pai
2017-07-11 18:13   ` Dave Hansen
2017-07-13  8:03     ` Ram Pai
2017-07-13 14:07       ` Dave Hansen
2017-07-13 17:04         ` Ram Pai
2017-07-05 21:22 ` [RFC v5 35/38] selftest: Move protecton key selftest to arch neutral directory Ram Pai
2017-07-05 21:22 ` [RFC v5 36/38] selftest: PowerPC specific test updates to memory protection keys Ram Pai
2017-07-11 17:33   ` Dave Hansen
2017-07-12 21:57     ` Ram Pai
2017-07-05 21:22 ` Ram Pai [this message]
2017-07-05 21:22 ` [RFC v5 38/38] Documentation: PowerPC specific " Ram Pai
2017-07-10  3:07   ` Anshuman Khandual
2017-07-10  5:59     ` Ram Pai
2017-07-11 18:23   ` Dave Hansen
2017-07-13 19:56     ` Ram Pai
2017-07-10  5:43 ` [RFC v5 00/38] powerpc: Memory Protection Keys Anshuman Khandual
2017-07-10  6:05   ` Ram Pai
2017-07-10 17:15     ` Ram Pai
2017-07-11 14:52 ` Michal Hocko
2017-07-11 19:32   ` Ram Pai
2017-07-11 21:30     ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2017-07-12  7:23     ` Michal Hocko
2017-07-12  7:39       ` Michal Hocko
2017-07-12 22:53       ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2017-07-13  6:20         ` Michal Hocko

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=1499289735-14220-38-git-send-email-linuxram@us.ibm.com \
    --to=linuxram@us.ibm.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=arnd@arndb.de \
    --cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
    --cc=bsingharora@gmail.com \
    --cc=corbet@lwn.net \
    --cc=dave.hansen@intel.com \
    --cc=hbabu@us.ibm.com \
    --cc=khandual@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
    --cc=paulus@samba.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).