All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>
To: Ram Pai <linuxram@us.ibm.com>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
Cc: linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	x86@kernel.org, linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-x86_64@vger.kernel.org,
	Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: pkeys: Support setting access rights for signal handlers
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2017 03:14:36 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <9dc13a32-b1a6-8462-7e19-cfcf9e2c151e@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171212231324.GE5460@ram.oc3035372033.ibm.com>

On 12/13/2017 12:13 AM, Ram Pai wrote:

> On POWER, the value of the pkey_read() i.e contents the AMR
> register(pkru equivalent), is always the same regardless of its
> context; signal handler or not.
> 
> In other words, the permission of any allocated key will not
> reset in a signal handler context.

That's certainly the simpler semantics, but I don't like how they differ 
from x86.

Is the AMR register reset to the original value upon (regular) return 
from the signal handler?

> I was not aware that x86 would reset the key permissions in signal
> handler.  I think, the proposed behavior for PKEY_ALLOC_SETSIGNAL should
> actually be the default behavior.

Note that PKEY_ALLOC_SETSIGNAL does something different: It requests 
that the kernel sets the access rights for the key to the bits specified 
at pkey_alloc time when the signal handler is invoked.  So there is 
still a reset with PKEY_ALLOC_SETSIGNAL, but to a different value.  It 
did not occur to me that it might be desirable to avoid resetting the 
value on a per-key basis.

Thanks,
Florian

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>
To: Ram Pai <linuxram@us.ibm.com>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
Cc: linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	x86@kernel.org, linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-x86_64@vger.kernel.org,
	Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: pkeys: Support setting access rights for signal handlers
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2017 03:14:36 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <9dc13a32-b1a6-8462-7e19-cfcf9e2c151e@redhat.com> (raw)
Message-ID: <20171213021436.DSkxW3s_Yi8F6zle0aNvUXcon73pQ6xEORvnXUrtbtc@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171212231324.GE5460@ram.oc3035372033.ibm.com>

On 12/13/2017 12:13 AM, Ram Pai wrote:

> On POWER, the value of the pkey_read() i.e contents the AMR
> register(pkru equivalent), is always the same regardless of its
> context; signal handler or not.
> 
> In other words, the permission of any allocated key will not
> reset in a signal handler context.

That's certainly the simpler semantics, but I don't like how they differ 
from x86.

Is the AMR register reset to the original value upon (regular) return 
from the signal handler?

> I was not aware that x86 would reset the key permissions in signal
> handler.  I think, the proposed behavior for PKEY_ALLOC_SETSIGNAL should
> actually be the default behavior.

Note that PKEY_ALLOC_SETSIGNAL does something different: It requests 
that the kernel sets the access rights for the key to the bits specified 
at pkey_alloc time when the signal handler is invoked.  So there is 
still a reset with PKEY_ALLOC_SETSIGNAL, but to a different value.  It 
did not occur to me that it might be desirable to avoid resetting the 
value on a per-key basis.

Thanks,
Florian

  reply	other threads:[~2017-12-13  2:14 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-12-09 21:16 pkeys: Support setting access rights for signal handlers Florian Weimer
     [not found] ` <5fee976a-42d4-d469-7058-b78ad8897219-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
2017-12-10  0:17   ` Dave Hansen
2017-12-10  0:17     ` Dave Hansen
2017-12-10  0:17     ` Dave Hansen
2017-12-10  6:42     ` Florian Weimer
2017-12-10  6:42       ` Florian Weimer
2017-12-11 16:13       ` Dave Hansen
2017-12-11 16:13         ` Dave Hansen
2017-12-12 23:13         ` Ram Pai
2017-12-12 23:13           ` Ram Pai
2017-12-13  2:14           ` Florian Weimer [this message]
2017-12-13  2:14             ` Florian Weimer
2017-12-13 11:35             ` Ram Pai
2017-12-13 11:35               ` Ram Pai
     [not found]               ` <20171213113544.GG5460-LOE2q6NSToAxGrZ80giIafUQ3DHhIser@public.gmane.org>
2017-12-13 15:08                 ` Florian Weimer
2017-12-13 15:08                   ` Florian Weimer
2017-12-13 15:08                   ` Florian Weimer
2017-12-13 15:22                   ` Dave Hansen
2017-12-13 15:22                     ` Dave Hansen
2017-12-13 15:40                     ` Florian Weimer
2017-12-13 15:40                       ` Florian Weimer
2017-12-14  0:17                       ` Ram Pai
2017-12-14  0:17                         ` Ram Pai
2017-12-14 11:21                         ` Florian Weimer
2017-12-16 15:09                           ` Ram Pai
2017-12-16 15:09                             ` Ram Pai
2017-12-16 15:25                             ` Florian Weimer
2017-12-16 15:25                               ` Florian Weimer
     [not found]                               ` <2eba29f4-804d-b211-1293-52a567739cad-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
2017-12-16 17:20                                 ` Ram Pai
2017-12-16 17:20                                   ` Ram Pai
2017-12-16 17:20                                   ` Ram Pai
2017-12-18 11:00                                   ` Florian Weimer
2017-12-18 11:00                                     ` 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=9dc13a32-b1a6-8462-7e19-cfcf9e2c151e@redhat.com \
    --to=fweimer@redhat.com \
    --cc=dave.hansen@intel.com \
    --cc=linux-api@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=linux-x86_64@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linuxram@us.ibm.com \
    --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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.