[PATCH 1/1 v2] x86: pkey-mprotect must allow pkey-0
dave.hansen at intel.com
Thu Mar 15 04:51:26 AEDT 2018
On 03/14/2018 10:14 AM, Ram Pai wrote:
> I look at key-0 as 'the key'. It has special status.
> (a) It always exist.
Do you mean "is always allocated"?
> (b) it cannot be freed.
This is the one I'm questioning.
> (c) it is assigned by default.
I agree on this totally. :)
> (d) its permissions cannot be modified.
Why not? You could pretty easily get a thread going that had its stack
covered with another pkey and that was being very careful what it
accesses. It could pretty easily set pkey-0's access or write-disable bits.
> (e) it bypasses key-permission checks when assigned.
I don't think this is necessary. I think the only rule we *need* is:
pkey-0 is allocated implicitly at execve() time. You do not
need to call pkey_alloc() to allocate it.
> An arch need not necessarily map 'the key-0' to its key-0. It could
> internally map it to any of its internal key of its choice, transparent
> to the application.
I don't understand what you are saying here.
More information about the Linuxppc-dev