linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 10/26] x86, pkeys: notify userspace about protection key faults

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1509222226090.5606@nanos>
Date:	Tue, 22 Sep 2015 22:27:11 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Dave Hansen <dave@...1.net>
cc:	x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/26] x86, pkeys: notify userspace about protection key
 faults

On Tue, 22 Sep 2015, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 09/22/2015 01:03 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Wed, 16 Sep 2015, Dave Hansen wrote:
> >>  
> >> +static inline u16 vma_pkey(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
> >> +{
> >> +	u16 pkey = 0;
> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_INTEL_MEMORY_PROTECTION_KEYS
> >> +	unsigned long f = vma->vm_flags;
> >> +	pkey |= (!!(f & VM_HIGH_ARCH_0)) << 0;
> >> +	pkey |= (!!(f & VM_HIGH_ARCH_1)) << 1;
> >> +	pkey |= (!!(f & VM_HIGH_ARCH_2)) << 2;
> >> +	pkey |= (!!(f & VM_HIGH_ARCH_3)) << 3;
> > 
> > Eew. What's wrong with:
> > 
> >      pkey = (vma->vm_flags & VM_PKEY_MASK) >> VM_PKEY_SHIFT;
> 
> I didn't do that only because we don't have any other need for
> VM_PKEY_MASK or VM_PKEY_SHIFT.  We could do:
> 
> #define VM_PKEY_MASK (VM_PKEY_BIT0 | VM_PKEY_BIT1 | VM_PKEY_BIT2...)
> 
> static inline u16 vma_pkey(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
> {
> 	int vm_pkey_shift = __ffs(VM_PKEY_MASK)
> 	return (vma->vm_flags & VM_PKEY_MASK) >> vm_pkey_shift;
> }
> 
> That's probably the same number of lines of code in the end.  The
> compiler _probably_ ends up doing the same thing either way.
> 
> >> +static u16 fetch_pkey(unsigned long address, struct task_struct *tsk)
> > 
> > So here we get a u16 and assign it to si_pkey
> > 
> >> +	if (boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_OSPKE) && si_code == SEGV_PKUERR)
> >> +		info.si_pkey = fetch_pkey(address, tsk);
> > 
> > which is int.
> > 
> >> +			int _pkey; /* FIXME: protection key value??
> > 
> > Inconsistent at least.
> 
> So I defined all the kernel-internal types as u16 since I *know* the
> size of the hardware.
> 
> The user-exposed ones should probably be a bit more generic.  I did just
> realize that this is an int and my proposed syscall is a long.  That I
> definitely need to make consistent.
> 
> Does anybody care whether it's an int or a long?

long is frowned upon due to 32/64bit. Even if that key stuff is only
available on 64bit for now ....

Thanks,

	tglx

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/