linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 28/34] x86: wire up mprotect

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]

Date:	Tue, 8 Dec 2015 19:44:59 +0100 (CET)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Dave Hansen <dave@...1.net>
cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, x86@...nel.org,
	dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, linux-api@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 28/34] x86: wire up mprotect_key() system call

On Thu, 3 Dec 2015, Dave Hansen wrote:
>  #include <asm-generic/mman.h>
> diff -puN mm/Kconfig~pkeys-16-x86-mprotect_key mm/Kconfig
> --- a/mm/Kconfig~pkeys-16-x86-mprotect_key	2015-12-03 16:21:31.114920208 -0800
> +++ b/mm/Kconfig	2015-12-03 16:21:31.119920435 -0800
> @@ -679,4 +679,5 @@ config NR_PROTECTION_KEYS
>  	# Everything supports a _single_ key, so allow folks to
>  	# at least call APIs that take keys, but require that the
>  	# key be 0.
> +	default 16 if X86_INTEL_MEMORY_PROTECTION_KEYS
>  	default 1

What happens if I set that to 42?

I think we want to make this a runtime evaluated thingy. If pkeys are
compiled in, but the machine does not support it then we don't support
16 keys, or do we?

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/