linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] powerpc, pkey: make protection key 0 less special

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20180327010353.GC5743@ram.oc3035372033.ibm.com>
Date:   Mon, 26 Mar 2018 18:03:53 -0700
From:   Ram Pai <linuxram@...ibm.com>
To:     mpe@...erman.id.au, mingo@...hat.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Cc:     linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        dave.hansen@...el.com, benh@...nel.crashing.org, paulus@...ba.org,
        aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, bsingharora@...il.com,
        hbabu@...ibm.com, mhocko@...nel.org, bauerman@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
        fweimer@...hat.com, msuchanek@...e.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
        shuah@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc, pkey: make protection key 0 less special

On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 04:31:41PM -0700, Ram Pai wrote:
> Applications need the ability to associate an address-range with some
> key and latter revert to its initial default key. Pkey-0 comes close to
> providing this function but falls short, because the current
> implementation disallows applications to explicitly associate pkey-0 to
> the address range.
> 
> Lets make pkey-0 less special and treat it almost like any other key.
> Thus it can be explicitly associated with any address range, and can be
> freed. This gives the application more flexibility and power.  The
> ability to free pkey-0 must be used responsibily, since pkey-0 is
> associated with almost all address-range by default.
> 
> Even with this change pkey-0 continues to be slightly more special
> from the following point of view.
> (a) it is implicitly allocated.
> (b) it is the default key assigned to any address-range.
> 
> Tested on powerpc.

This patch is not entirely correct.
> 
> cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
> cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
> cc: Michael Ellermen <mpe@...erman.id.au>
> cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
> cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
> Signed-off-by: Ram Pai <linuxram@...ibm.com>
> ---
>  arch/powerpc/include/asm/pkeys.h | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++----
>  1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/pkeys.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/pkeys.h
> index 0409c80..9c7d3bd 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/pkeys.h
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/pkeys.h
> @@ -101,10 +101,18 @@ static inline u16 pte_to_pkey_bits(u64 pteflags)
> 
>  static inline bool mm_pkey_is_allocated(struct mm_struct *mm, int pkey)
>  {
> -	/* A reserved key is never considered as 'explicitly allocated' */
> -	return ((pkey < arch_max_pkey()) &&
> -		!__mm_pkey_is_reserved(pkey) &&
> -		__mm_pkey_is_allocated(mm, pkey));
> +	/* pkey 0 is allocated by default. */
> +	if (!pkey)
> +		return true;

This is wrong. pkey-0 should not be treated any special here. Will fix
this and send a new patch. Sorry for the noise.

RP