[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFxLUqiT2o6G-eSaGz1=o765U78Sxvrpx+5Y1Fk=Siei=Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 15:20:18 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"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 3:16 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
>
> Yes, I think. If I'm using protection keys to protect some critical
> data structure (important stuff in shared memory, important memory
> mapped files, pmem, etc), then I'll allocate a protection key and set
> PKRU to deny writes. The problem is that I really, really want writes
> denied except when explicitly enabled in narrow regions of code that
> use wrpkru to enable them, and I don't want an asynchronous signal
> delivered in those narrow regions of code or newly cloned threads to
> pick up the write-allow value. So I want baseline_pkru to have the
> deny writes entry.
Hmm. Ok, that does sound like a valid and interesting usage case. Fair enough.
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists