On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 06:37:41PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Dave Hansen: > > > On 11/8/18 7:01 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: > >> Ideally, PKEY_DISABLE_READ | PKEY_DISABLE_WRITE and PKEY_DISABLE_READ | > >> PKEY_DISABLE_ACCESS would be treated as PKEY_DISABLE_ACCESS both, and a > >> line PKEY_DISABLE_READ would result in an EINVAL failure. > > > > Sounds reasonable to me. > > > > I don't see any urgency to do this right now. It could easily go in > > alongside the ppc patches when those get merged. > > POWER support has already been merged, so we need to do something here > now, before I can complete the userspace side. > > > The only thing I'd suggest is that we make it something slightly > > higher than 0x4. It'll make the code easier to deal with in the > > kernel if we have the ABI and the hardware mirror each other, and if > > we pick 0x4 in the ABI for PKEY_DISABLE_READ, it might get messy if > > the harware choose 0x4 for PKEY_DISABLE_EXECUTE or something. > > > > So, let's make it 0x80 or something on x86 at least. > > I don't have a problem with that if that's what it takes. > > > Also, I'll be happy to review and ack the patch to do this, but I'd > > expect the ppc guys (hi Ram!) to actually put it together. > > Ram, do you want to write a patch? Florian, I can. But I am struggling to understand the requirement. Why is this needed? Are we proposing a enhancement to the sys_pkey_alloc(), to be able to allocate keys that are initialied to disable-read only? RP > > I'll promise I finish the glibc support for this. 8-) > > Thanks, > Florian -- Ram Pai
