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
next prev 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 ` [RFC v5 15/38] powerpc: helper function to read,write AMR,IAMR,UAMOR registers 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).