[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b40719da-a23b-72a4-ddde-54c2f5d96820@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2017 10:21:06 -0800
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bpetkov@...e.de>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...gle.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>,
Eduardo Valentin <eduval@...zon.com>,
"Liguori, Anthony" <aliguori@...zon.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
"Aneesh Kumar K. V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 05/16] mm: Allow special mappings with user access cleared
On 12/13/2017 10:08 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 7:54 AM, Peter Zijlstr <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>> Which is why get_user_pages() _should_ enforce this.
>>
>> What use are protection keys if you can trivially circumvent them?
> No, we will *not* worry about protection keys in get_user_pages().
We did introduce some support for it here:
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=33a709b25a760b91184bb335cf7d7c32b8123013
> They are not "security". They are a debug aid and safety against
> random mis-use.
Totally agree. It's not about security. As I mentioned in the commit,
the goal here was to try to make pkey-protected access behavior
consistent with mprotect().
I still think this was nice to do and probably surprises users less than
if we didn't have it.
> We already allow access to PROT_NONE for gdb and friends, very much on purpose.
Yup, exactly, and that's one of the reasons that I tried to call those
out as "remote" access that are specicifially no subject to protection keys.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists