From: Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>
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>
Subject: Re: pkeys on POWER: Access rights not reset on execve
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2018 19:29:33 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <30f5cb0e-e09a-15e6-f77d-a3afa422a651@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180611172305.GB5697@ram.oc3035372033.ibm.com>
On 06/11/2018 07:23 PM, Ram Pai wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 08, 2018 at 07:53:51AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Are you referring to the thread
> '[PATCH] pkeys: Introduce PKEY_ALLOC_SIGNALINHERIT and change signal semantics'
> Otherwise please point me to the URL of that thread. Sorry and thankx. :)
No, it's this issue:
<https://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/2018-May/173157.html>
The UAMOR part has been fixed (thanks), but I think processes still
start out with default-allow AMR.
Thanks,
Florian
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-06-11 17:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-05-18 14:27 pkeys on POWER: Access rights not reset on execve Florian Weimer
2018-05-19 1:19 ` Ram Pai
2018-05-19 1:50 ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-05-19 5:26 ` Florian Weimer
2018-05-19 20:27 ` Ram Pai
2018-05-19 23:47 ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-05-20 6:04 ` Ram Pai
2018-05-20 6:06 ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-05-20 19:11 ` Ram Pai
2018-05-21 11:29 ` Florian Weimer
2018-06-03 20:18 ` Ram Pai
2018-06-04 10:12 ` Florian Weimer
2018-06-04 14:01 ` Ram Pai
2018-06-04 17:57 ` Florian Weimer
2018-06-04 19:02 ` Ram Pai
2018-06-04 21:00 ` Florian Weimer
2018-06-08 2:34 ` Ram Pai
2018-06-08 5:53 ` Florian Weimer
2018-06-08 10:15 ` Michal Suchánek
2018-06-08 10:44 ` Florian Weimer
2018-06-08 12:54 ` Michal Suchánek
2018-06-08 12:57 ` Florian Weimer
2018-06-08 13:49 ` Michal Suchánek
2018-06-08 13:51 ` Florian Weimer
2018-06-08 14:17 ` Michal Suchánek
2018-06-11 17:23 ` Ram Pai
2018-06-11 17:29 ` Florian Weimer [this message]
2018-06-11 20:08 ` Ram Pai
2018-06-12 12:17 ` Florian Weimer
2018-05-19 5:12 ` Florian Weimer
2018-05-19 11:11 ` 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=30f5cb0e-e09a-15e6-f77d-a3afa422a651@redhat.com \
--to=fweimer@redhat.com \
--cc=dave.hansen@intel.com \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=linuxram@us.ibm.com \
--cc=luto@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).