linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1 v2] x86: pkey-mprotect must allow pkey-0

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]

Message-ID: <18b155e3-07e9-5a4b-1f95-e1667078438c@intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 14 Mar 2018 07:19:23 -0700
From:   Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To:     Ram Pai <linuxram@...ibm.com>, mingo@...hat.com
Cc:     mpe@...erman.id.au, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, x86@...nel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        benh@...nel.crashing.org, paulus@...ba.org,
        khandual@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
        bsingharora@...il.com, hbabu@...ibm.com, mhocko@...nel.org,
        bauerman@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, ebiederm@...ssion.com, corbet@....net,
        arnd@...db.de, fweimer@...hat.com, msuchanek@...e.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1 v2] x86: pkey-mprotect must allow pkey-0

On 03/14/2018 12:46 AM, Ram Pai wrote:
> Once an address range is associated with an allocated pkey, it cannot be
> reverted back to key-0. There is no valid reason for the above behavior.  On
> the contrary applications need the ability to do so.

I'm trying to remember why we cared in the first place. :)

Could you add that to the changelog, please?

> @@ -92,7 +92,8 @@ int mm_pkey_alloc(struct mm_struct *mm)
>  static inline
>  int mm_pkey_free(struct mm_struct *mm, int pkey)
>  {
> -	if (!mm_pkey_is_allocated(mm, pkey))
> +	/* pkey 0 is special and can never be freed */
> +	if (!pkey || !mm_pkey_is_allocated(mm, pkey))
>  		return -EINVAL;

If an app was being really careful, couldn't it free up all of the
implicitly-pkey-0-assigned memory so that it is not in use at all?  In
that case, we might want to allow this.

On the other hand, nobody is likely to _ever_ actually do this so this
is good shoot-yourself-in-the-foot protection.