From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
Michael Sammler <msammler@mpi-sws.org>
Cc: Will Drewry <wad@chromium.org>,
Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
Ram Pai <linuxram@us.ibm.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
PowerPC <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] seccomp: Add protection keys into seccomp_data
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 09:37:32 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <7d93080b-68bd-7563-bd3b-e7ee1545e367@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGXu5jJ2fFmEXfUzga3XBXcsHPuPWWf5zLeyn8+Z1oZVa8oTuQ@mail.gmail.com>
On 10/29/18 9:25 AM, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 4:23 AM, Michael Sammler <msammler@mpi-sws.org> wrote:
>> Add the current value of an architecture specific protection keys
>> register (currently PKRU on x86) to data available for seccomp-bpf
>> programs to work on. This allows filters based on the currently
>> enabled protection keys.
How does the current "assignment" of protection keys to the various uses
get communicated to the filter?
I'm not sure this is a great use for PKRU. I *think* the basic problem
is that you want to communicate some rights information down into a
filter, and you want to communicate it with PKRU. While it's handy to
have an extra register that nobody (generally) mucks with, I'm not quite
convinced that we want to repurpose it this way.
Also, I'm not sure the kernel provides the PKRU guarantees you want at
the moment. Our implementation *probably* works, but it's mostly by
accident.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-10-29 16:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-10-29 11:23 [RFC PATCH] seccomp: Add protection keys into seccomp_data Michael Sammler
2018-10-29 16:25 ` Kees Cook
2018-10-29 16:37 ` Dave Hansen [this message]
2018-10-29 16:48 ` Jann Horn
2018-10-29 17:02 ` Michael Sammler
2018-10-29 17:07 ` Dave Hansen
2018-10-29 17:29 ` Dave Hansen
2018-10-29 21:55 ` Michael Sammler
2018-10-29 22:33 ` Dave Hansen
2018-10-30 10:55 ` Michael Sammler
2018-10-29 16:42 ` Jann Horn
2018-10-29 16:48 ` Ram Pai
2018-10-29 17:05 ` Michael Sammler
2022-11-14 10:09 Stephen Röttger
2022-11-15 4:16 ` Michael Sammler
2022-11-16 12:20 ` Stephen Röttger
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=7d93080b-68bd-7563-bd3b-e7ee1545e367@intel.com \
--to=dave.hansen@intel.com \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=linux-api@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=linuxram@us.ibm.com \
--cc=luto@amacapital.net \
--cc=msammler@mpi-sws.org \
--cc=wad@chromium.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).