linux-kernel - Re: Rethinking sigcontext's xfeatures slightly for PKRU's benefit?

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <CA+55aFyVJF48-QwZBD++1u8CB7EYrO1rMnwsZFW4rTBFoNXSZw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 18 Dec 2015 13:45:06 -0800
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.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 1:12 PM, Dave Hansen
<dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> But, if we are picking out an execute-only pkey more dynamically, we've
> got to keep the default value for the entire process somewhere.

How dynamic do we want to make this, though?

I haven't looked at the details, and perhaps more importantly, I don't
know what exactly are the requirements you've gotten from the people
who are expected to actually use this.

I think we might want to hardcode a couple of keys as "kernel
reserved". And I'd rather reserve them up-front than have some user
program be unhappy later when we want to use them.

I guess we want to leave key #0 for "normal page", so my suggesting to
use that for the execute-only was probably misguided.

But I do think we might want to have that "no read access" as a real
fixed key too, because I think the kernel itself would want to use it:

 (a) to make sure that it gets the right fault when user space passes
in a execute-only address to a system call.

 (b) for much more efficient PAGEALLOC_DEBUG for kernel mappings.

so I do think that we'd want to reserve two of the 16 keys up front.

Would it be ok for the expected users to have those keys simply be
fixed? With key 0 being used for all default pages, and key 1 being
used for all execute-only pages? And then defaulting PKRU to 4,
disallowing access to that key #1?

I could imagine that some kernel person would want to use even more
keys, but I think two fixed keys are kind of the minimal we'd want to
use.

           Linus
--
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/