On 06/02/2016 05:26 PM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote: > On 06/01/2016 07:17 PM, Dave Hansen wrote: >> On 06/01/2016 05:11 PM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If I read this right, it doesn't actually remove any pkey restrictions >>>>>>> that may have been applied while the key was allocated. So there could be >>>>>>> pages with that key assigned that might do surprising things if the key is >>>>>>> reallocated for another use later, right? Is that how the API is intended >>>>>>> to work? >>>>> >>>>> Yeah, that's how it works. >>>>> >>>>> It's not ideal. It would be _best_ if we during mm_pkey_free(), we >>>>> ensured that no VMAs under that mm have that vma_pkey() set. But, that >>>>> search would be potentially expensive (a walk over all VMAs), or would >>>>> force us to keep a data structure with a count of all the VMAs with a >>>>> given key. >>>>> >>>>> I should probably discuss this behavior in the manpages and address it >>> s/probably// >>> >>> And, did I miss it. Was there an updated man-pages patch in the latest >>> series? I did not notice it. >> >> There have been to changes to the patches that warranted updating the >> manpages until now. I'll send the update immediately. > > Do those updated pages include discussion of the point noted above? > I could not see it mentioned there. I added the following text to pkey_alloc.2. I somehow neglected to send it out in the v3 update of the manpages RFC: An application should not call .BR pkey_free () on any protection key which has been assigned to an address range by .BR pkey_mprotect () and which is still in use. The behavior in this case is undefined and may result in an error. I'll add that in the version (v4) I send out shortly. > Just by the way, the above behavior seems to offer possibilities > for users to shoot themselves in the foot, in a way that has security > implications. (Or do I misunderstand?) Protection keys has the potential to add a layer of security and reliability to applications. But, it has not been primarily designed as a security feature. For instance, WRPKRU is a completely unprivileged instruction, so pkeys are useless in any case that an attacker controls the PKRU register or can execute arbitrary instructions. That said, this mechanism does, indeed, allow a user to shoot themselves in the foot and in a way that could have security implications. For instance, say the following happened: 1. A sensitive bit of data in memory was marked with a pkey 2. That pkey was set as PKEY_DISABLE_ACCESS 3. The application called pkey_free() on the pkey, without freeing the sensitive data 4. Application calls pkey_alloc() and then clears PKEY_DISABLE_ACCESS 5. Applocation can now read the sensitive data The application has to have basically "leaked" a reference to the pkey. It forgot that it had sensitive data marked with that key. The kernel _could_ enforce that no in-use pkey may have pkey_free() called on it. But, doing that has tradeoffs which could make pkey_free() extremely slow: > It's not ideal. It would be _best_ if we during mm_pkey_free(), we > ensured that no VMAs under that mm have that vma_pkey() set. But, that > search would be potentially expensive (a walk over all VMAs), or would > force us to keep a data structure with a count of all the VMAs with a > given key. In addition, that checking _could_ be implemented in an application by inspecting /proc/$pid/smaps for "ProtectionKey: $foo" before calling pkey_free($foo). -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>