Re: MPK: removing a pkey

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 11/24/2017 12:29 AM, Dave Hansen wrote:
Although weird, the thought here was that pkey_mprotect() callers are
new and should know about the interactions with PROT_EXEC.  They can
also*get*  PROT_EXEC semantics if they want.

The only wart here is if you do:

	mprotect(..., PROT_EXEC); // key 10 is now the PROT_EXEC key

I thought the PROT_EXEC key is always 1?

	pkey_mprotect(..., PROT_EXEC, key=3);

I'm not sure what this does.  We should probably ensure that it returns
an error.

Without protection key support, PROT_EXEC would imply PROT_READ with an ordinary mprotect. I think it makes sense to stick to this behavior. It is what I have documented for glibc:

  <https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2017-11/msg00841.html>

Thanks,
Florian
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



[Index of Archives]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux