From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <fweimer@redhat.com>
Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx3-rdu2.redhat.com [66.187.233.73])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 412BRm6qjYzF1QD
 for <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>; Fri,  8 Jun 2018 15:53:56 +1000 (AEST)
Subject: Re: pkeys on POWER: Access rights not reset on execve
To: Ram Pai <linuxram@us.ibm.com>
Cc: Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
 linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
 Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
References: <20180520060425.GL5479@ram.oc3035372033.ibm.com>
 <CALCETrVvQkphypn10A_rkX35DNqi29MJcXYRpRiCFNm02VYz2g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180520191115.GM5479@ram.oc3035372033.ibm.com>
 <aae1952c-886b-cfc8-e98b-fa3be5fab0fa@redhat.com>
 <20180603201832.GA10109@ram.oc3035372033.ibm.com>
 <4e53b91f-80a7-816a-3e9b-56d7be7cd092@redhat.com>
 <20180604140135.GA10088@ram.oc3035372033.ibm.com>
 <f2f61c24-8e8f-0d36-4e22-196a2a3f7ca7@redhat.com>
 <20180604190229.GB10088@ram.oc3035372033.ibm.com>
 <30040030-1aa2-623b-beec-dd1ceb3eb9a7@redhat.com>
 <20180608023441.GA5573@ram.oc3035372033.ibm.com>
From: Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <2858a8eb-c9b5-42ce-5cfc-74a4b3ad6aa9@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2018 07:53:51 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20180608023441.GA5573@ram.oc3035372033.ibm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List <linuxppc-dev.lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/options/linuxppc-dev>,
 <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
 <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=subscribe>

On 06/08/2018 04:34 AM, Ram Pai wrote:
>>
>> So the remaining question at this point is whether the Intel
>> behavior (default-deny instead of default-allow) is preferable.
> 
> Florian, remind me what behavior needs to fixed?

See the other thread.  The Intel register equivalent to the AMR by 
default disallows access to yet-unallocated keys, so that threads which 
are created before key allocation do not magically gain access to a key 
allocated by another thread.

Thanks,
Florian