From: Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>
To: Dave Hansen <dave@sr71.net>
Cc: One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/12] mm: Pass the 4-bit protection key in via PROT_ bits to syscalls
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2015 22:34:06 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87pp1xgc01.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <55E9FC96.7000400@sr71.net> (Dave Hansen's message of "Fri, 4 Sep 2015 13:18:30 -0700")
* Dave Hansen:
> On 09/04/2015 01:13 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> ...
>>>>> >>> #define PROT_WRITE 0x2 /* page can be written */
>>>>> >>> #define PROT_EXEC 0x4 /* page can be executed */
>>>>> >>> #define PROT_SEM 0x8 /* page may be used for atomic ops */
>>>>> >>> +#define PROT_PKEY0 0x10 /* protection key value (bit 0) */
>>>>> >>> +#define PROT_PKEY1 0x20 /* protection key value (bit 1) */
>>>>> >>> +#define PROT_PKEY2 0x40 /* protection key value (bit 2) */
>>>>> >>> +#define PROT_PKEY3 0x80 /* protection key value (bit 3) */
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Thats leaking deep Intelisms into asm-generic which makes me very
>>>> >> uncomfortable. Whether we need to reserve some bits for "arch specific"
>>>> >> is one question, what we do with them ought not to be leaking out.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> To start with trying to port code people will want to do
>>>> >>
>>>> >> #define PROT_PKEY0 0
>>>> >> #define PROT_PKEY1 0
>>> >
>>> > Yeah, I feel pretty uncomfortable with it as well. I really don't
>>> > expect these to live like this in asm-generic when I submit this.
>>> >
>>> > Powerpc and ia64 have _something_ resembling protection keys, so the
>>> > concept isn't entirely x86 or Intel-specific. My hope would be that we
>>> > do this in a way that other architectures can use.
>> It will also be very painful to add additional bits. We went through
>> this with the CPU affinity mask, and it still hurts it. Please use a
>> more sensible interface from the start. :)
>
> Any suggestions?
It's difficult. I don't know what kind of programming model you
expect. Could glibc use these bits for its own implementation? Or
OpenSSL? Or is this intended for tightly integrated language
run-times which have a very precise idea what kind of stuff runs
within the same address space?
> Are you thinking that we want a completely separate syscall and
> completely avoid using the PROT_* bits?
Yes, that would seem more future-proof.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-09-04 20:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-05-07 17:41 [PATCH 00/12] [RFC] x86: Memory Protection Keys Dave Hansen
2015-05-07 17:41 ` [PATCH 01/12] x86, pkeys: cpuid bit definition Dave Hansen
2015-05-07 17:41 ` [PATCH 02/12] x86, pku: define new CR4 bit Dave Hansen
2015-05-07 17:41 ` [PATCH 03/12] x86, pkey: pkru xsave fields and data structure Dave Hansen
2015-05-07 17:41 ` [PATCH 06/12] x86, pkeys: store protection in high VMA flags Dave Hansen
2015-05-15 21:10 ` Thomas Gleixner
2015-05-15 21:13 ` Dave Hansen
2015-05-07 17:41 ` [PATCH 04/12] x86, pkeys: PTE bits Dave Hansen
2015-05-07 17:41 ` [PATCH 05/12] x86, pkeys: new page fault error code bit: PF_PK Dave Hansen
2015-05-07 17:41 ` [PATCH 07/12] mm: Pass the 4-bit protection key in via PROT_ bits to syscalls Dave Hansen
2015-05-07 19:11 ` One Thousand Gnomes
2015-05-07 19:19 ` Dave Hansen
2015-09-04 20:13 ` Florian Weimer
2015-09-04 20:18 ` Dave Hansen
2015-09-04 20:34 ` Florian Weimer [this message]
2015-09-04 20:41 ` Dave Hansen
2015-05-07 17:41 ` [PATCH 08/12] x86, pkeys: arch-specific protection bits Dave Hansen
2015-05-07 17:41 ` [PATCH 10/12] x86, pkeys: differentiate Protection Key faults from normal Dave Hansen
2015-05-07 17:41 ` [PATCH 09/12] x86, pkeys: notify userspace about protection key faults Dave Hansen
2015-05-07 17:41 ` [PATCH 12/12] x86, pkeys: Documentation Dave Hansen
2015-05-07 17:41 ` [PATCH 11/12] x86, pkeys: actually enable Memory Protection Keys in CPU Dave Hansen
2015-05-07 17:57 ` [PATCH 00/12] [RFC] x86: Memory Protection Keys Ingo Molnar
2015-05-07 18:09 ` Dave Hansen
2015-05-07 18:48 ` Vlastimil Babka
2015-05-07 21:45 ` Dave Hansen
2015-05-09 19:09 ` Dr. David Alan Gilbert
2015-05-07 19:18 ` One Thousand Gnomes
2015-05-07 19:26 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-05-07 19:40 ` Dave Hansen
2015-05-07 20:11 ` One Thousand Gnomes
2015-05-08 4:51 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-05-08 6:09 ` Kevin Easton
2015-05-07 19:22 ` Christian Borntraeger
2015-05-07 19:29 ` Dave Hansen
2015-05-07 19:45 ` Christian Borntraeger
2015-05-07 19:49 ` Dave Hansen
2015-05-07 19:57 ` Christian Borntraeger
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=87pp1xgc01.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de \
--to=fw@deneb.enyo.de \
--cc=dave@sr71.net \
--cc=gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.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