[PATCH v3] x86: treat pkey-0 special

[PATCH v3] x86: treat pkey-0 special

[Ram Pai]

Applications need the ability to associate an address-range with some
key and latter revert to its initial default key. Pkey-0 comes close to
providing this function but falls short, because the current
implementation disallows applications to explicitly associate pkey-0 to
the address range.

This patch clarifies the semantics of pkey-0 and provides the
corresponding implementation on powerpc.

Pkey-0 is special with the following semantics.
(a) it is implicitly allocated and can never be freed. It always exists.
(b) it is the default key assigned to any address-range.
(c) it can be explicitly associated with any address-range.

Tested on x86_64.

History:
    v3 : added clarification of the semantics of pkey0.
    		-- suggested by Dave Hansen
    v2 : split the patch into two, one for x86 and one for powerpc
    		-- suggested by Michael Ellermen

cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
cc: Michael Ellermen <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Ram Pai <linuxram@us.ibm.com>
---
 arch/x86/include/asm/pkeys.h | 5 +++--
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/pkeys.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/pkeys.h
index a0ba1ff..6ea7486 100644
--- a/arch/x86/include/asm/pkeys.h
+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/pkeys.h
@@ -52,7 +52,7 @@ bool mm_pkey_is_allocated(struct mm_struct *mm, int pkey)
 	 * from pkey_alloc().  pkey 0 is special, and never
 	 * returned from pkey_alloc().
 	 */
-	if (pkey <= 0)
+	if (pkey < 0)
 		return false;
 	if (pkey >= arch_max_pkey())
 		return false;
@@ -92,7 +92,8 @@ int mm_pkey_alloc(struct mm_struct *mm)
 static inline
 int mm_pkey_free(struct mm_struct *mm, int pkey)
 {
-	if (!mm_pkey_is_allocated(mm, pkey))
+	/* pkey 0 is special and can never be freed */
+	if (!pkey || !mm_pkey_is_allocated(mm, pkey))
 		return -EINVAL;
 
 	mm_set_pkey_free(mm, pkey);
-- 
1.8.3.1

Re: [PATCH v3] x86: treat pkey-0 special

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Wed, 14 Mar 2018, Ram Pai wrote:
> Applications need the ability to associate an address-range with some
> key and latter revert to its initial default key. Pkey-0 comes close to
> providing this function but falls short, because the current
> implementation disallows applications to explicitly associate pkey-0 to
> the address range.
> 
> This patch clarifies the semantics of pkey-0 and provides the

grep 'This patch' Documentation/process

> corresponding implementation on powerpc.
> 
> Pkey-0 is special with the following semantics.
> (a) it is implicitly allocated and can never be freed. It always exists.
> (b) it is the default key assigned to any address-range.
> (c) it can be explicitly associated with any address-range.
> 
> Tested on x86_64.

I'm curious how the corresponding implementation on powerpc can be tested
on x86_64. Copy and paste is not enough ...

> 
> History:
>     v3 : added clarification of the semantics of pkey0.
>     		-- suggested by Dave Hansen
>     v2 : split the patch into two, one for x86 and one for powerpc
>     		-- suggested by Michael Ellermen

Please put the history below the --- seperator. It's not part of the
changelog. That way the tools can discard it when picking up the patch.

> 
> cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
> cc: Michael Ellermen <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
> cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Ram Pai <linuxram@us.ibm.com>
> ---
>  arch/x86/include/asm/pkeys.h | 5 +++--
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/pkeys.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/pkeys.h
> index a0ba1ff..6ea7486 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/pkeys.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/pkeys.h
> @@ -52,7 +52,7 @@ bool mm_pkey_is_allocated(struct mm_struct *mm, int pkey)
>  	 * from pkey_alloc().  pkey 0 is special, and never
>  	 * returned from pkey_alloc().
>  	 */
> -	if (pkey <= 0)
> +	if (pkey < 0)
>  		return false;
>  	if (pkey >= arch_max_pkey())
>  		return false;
> @@ -92,7 +92,8 @@ int mm_pkey_alloc(struct mm_struct *mm)
>  static inline
>  int mm_pkey_free(struct mm_struct *mm, int pkey)
>  {
> -	if (!mm_pkey_is_allocated(mm, pkey))
> +	/* pkey 0 is special and can never be freed */

This comment is pretty useless. How should anyone figure out whats special
about pkey 0?

> +	if (!pkey || !mm_pkey_is_allocated(mm, pkey))

Why this extra check? mm_pkey_is_allocated(mm, 0) should not return true
ever. If it does, then this wants to be fixed.

Thanks,

	tglx

Re: [PATCH v3] x86: treat pkey-0 special

[Dave Hansen]

On 03/15/2018 02:46 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> +	if (!pkey || !mm_pkey_is_allocated(mm, pkey))
> Why this extra check? mm_pkey_is_allocated(mm, 0) should not return true
> ever. If it does, then this wants to be fixed.

I was thinking that we _do_ actually want it to seem allocated.  It just
get "allocated" implicitly when an mm is created.  I think that will
simplify the code if we avoid treating it specially in as many places as
possible.

Re: [PATCH v3] x86: treat pkey-0 special

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Thu, 15 Mar 2018, Dave Hansen wrote:

> On 03/15/2018 02:46 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >> +	if (!pkey || !mm_pkey_is_allocated(mm, pkey))
> > Why this extra check? mm_pkey_is_allocated(mm, 0) should not return true
> > ever. If it does, then this wants to be fixed.
> 
> I was thinking that we _do_ actually want it to seem allocated.  It just
> get "allocated" implicitly when an mm is created.  I think that will
> simplify the code if we avoid treating it specially in as many places as
> possible.

That works as well.

Re: [PATCH v3] x86: treat pkey-0 special

[Ram Pai]

On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 08:55:31AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 03/15/2018 02:46 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >> +	if (!pkey || !mm_pkey_is_allocated(mm, pkey))
> > Why this extra check? mm_pkey_is_allocated(mm, 0) should not return true
> > ever. If it does, then this wants to be fixed.
> 
> I was thinking that we _do_ actually want it to seem allocated.  It just
> get "allocated" implicitly when an mm is created.  I think that will
> simplify the code if we avoid treating it specially in as many places as
> possible.

I think, the logic that makes pkey-0 special must to go
in arch-neutral code.   How about checking for pkey-0 in sys_pkey_free()
itself?

RP

Re: [PATCH v3] x86: treat pkey-0 special

[Dave Hansen]

On 03/15/2018 10:21 AM, Ram Pai wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 08:55:31AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
>> On 03/15/2018 02:46 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>>> +	if (!pkey || !mm_pkey_is_allocated(mm, pkey))
>>> Why this extra check? mm_pkey_is_allocated(mm, 0) should not return true
>>> ever. If it does, then this wants to be fixed.
>> I was thinking that we _do_ actually want it to seem allocated.  It just
>> get "allocated" implicitly when an mm is created.  I think that will
>> simplify the code if we avoid treating it specially in as many places as
>> possible.
> I think, the logic that makes pkey-0 special must to go
> in arch-neutral code.   How about checking for pkey-0 in sys_pkey_free()
> itself?

This is for protection against shooting yourself in the foot?  Yes, that
can go in sys_pkey_free().

Does this need manpage and/or selftests updates?

Re: [PATCH v3] x86: treat pkey-0 special

[Ram Pai]

On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 10:31:51AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 03/15/2018 10:21 AM, Ram Pai wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 08:55:31AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> >> On 03/15/2018 02:46 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >>>> +	if (!pkey || !mm_pkey_is_allocated(mm, pkey))
> >>> Why this extra check? mm_pkey_is_allocated(mm, 0) should not return true
> >>> ever. If it does, then this wants to be fixed.
> >> I was thinking that we _do_ actually want it to seem allocated.  It just
> >> get "allocated" implicitly when an mm is created.  I think that will
> >> simplify the code if we avoid treating it specially in as many places as
> >> possible.
> > I think, the logic that makes pkey-0 special must to go
> > in arch-neutral code.   How about checking for pkey-0 in sys_pkey_free()
> > itself?
> 
> This is for protection against shooting yourself in the foot?  Yes, that
> can go in sys_pkey_free().
> 
> Does this need manpage and/or selftests updates?

Yes. it needs selftest, manpage and documentation updates too.

Unfortunately I am not getting enough reviewed-by for my selftests
and documentation changes. :-(  Need help!


-- 
Ram Pai