On 11/22/2017 05:32 PM, Dave Hansen wrote: > On 11/22/2017 08:21 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: >> On 11/22/2017 05:10 PM, Dave Hansen wrote: >>> On 11/22/2017 04:15 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: >>>> On 11/22/2017 09:18 AM, Vlastimil Babka wrote: >>>>> And, was the pkey == -1 internal wiring supposed to be exposed to the >>>>> pkey_mprotect() signal, or should there have been a pre-check returning >>>>> EINVAL in SYSCALL_DEFINE4(pkey_mprotect), before calling >>>>> do_mprotect_pkey())? I assume it's too late to change it now anyway (or >>>>> not?), so should we also document it? >>>> >>>> I think the -1 case to the set the default key is useful because it >>>> allows you to use a key value of -1 to mean “MPK is not supported”, and >>>> still call pkey_mprotect. >>> >>> The behavior to not allow 0 to be set was unintentional and is a bug. >>> We should fix that. >> >> On the other hand, x86-64 has no single default protection key due to >> the PROT_EXEC emulation. > > No, the default is clearly 0 and documented to be so. The PROT_EXEC > emulation one should be inaccessible in all the APIs so does not even > show up as *being* a key in the API. The fact that it's implemented > with pkeys should be pretty immaterial other than the fact that you > can't touch the high bits in PKRU. So, just to be sure, if we call pkey_mprotect() with 0, will it blindly set 0, or the result of arch_override_mprotect_pkey() (thus equivalent to call with -1) ? I assume the latter? -- 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>
