[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrXsQrVstLe4WAAWy-scMmS4Yxe95Lx05j3dmu41L76dMg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 13:39:25 -0700
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: Dave Hansen <dave@...1.net>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...gle.com>,
Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 26/26] x86, pkeys: Documentation
On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 1:24 PM, Dave Hansen <dave@...1.net> wrote:
> On 10/03/2015 01:17 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> Right now the native x86 PTE format allows two protection related bits for
>> user-space pages:
>>
>> _PAGE_BIT_RW: if 0 the page is read-only, if 1 then it's read-write
>> _PAGE_BIT_NX: if 0 the page is executable, if 1 then it's not executable
>>
>> As discussed previously, pkeys allows 'true execute only (--x)' mappings.
>>
>> Another possibility would be 'true write-only (-w-)' mappings.
>
> How would those work?
>
> Protection Keys has a Write-Disable and an Access-Disable bit. But,
> Access-Disable denies _all_ data access to the region. There's no way
> to allow only writes.
Weird. I wonder why Intel did that.
I also wonder whether EPT can do write-only.
--Andy
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists