[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrVsLX0vBKSRhC8WsbJvDSakPpP9+sPSPfaf22Mrm0a7yw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 13:02:50 -0800
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Subject: Re: Rethinking sigcontext's xfeatures slightly for PKRU's benefit?
On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 12:58 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
> On 12/18/2015 12:49 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>
>> IOW, I like my idea in which signal delivery always sets PKRU to the
>> application-requested-by-syscall values and sigreturn restores it.
>> Kinda like sigaltstack, but applies to all signals and affects PKRU
>> instead of RSP.
>>
>
> I think this is the only sensible option, with the default being all zero.
>
Or not quite all zero if we do Dave's experimental PROT_EXEC thing.
Actually, I want to introduce a set of per-mm "incompatible" bits. By
default, they'd be zero. We can, as needed, define bits that do
something nice but break old code. I want one of the bits to turn
vsyscalls off entirely. Another bit could say that the kernel is
allowed to steal a protection key for PROT_EXEC.
These bits would be read and written by prctl, but there could also be
an ELF note mechanism to initialize them on execve without a syscall.
--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