Re: MPK: removing a pkey

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


On 11/23/2017 01:42 PM, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> It's supposed to set 0.
>> -1 was, as far as I remember, an internal-to-the-kernel-only thing to
>> tell us that a key came from *mprotect()* instead of pkey_mprotect().
> So, pkey_mprotect(..., 0) will set it to 0, regardless of PROT_EXEC.

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

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

> pkey_mprotect(..., -1) or mprotect() will set it to 0-or-PROT_EXEC-pkey.
> Can't shake the feeling that it's somewhat weird, but I guess it's
> flexible at least. So just has to be well documented.

It *is* weird.  But, layering on top of legacy APIs are often weird.  I
would have been open to other sane, but less weird ways to do it a year
ago. :)
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-x86_64" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at

[Index of Archives]     [Linux ia64]     [Linux Kernel]     [DCCP]     [Linux ARM]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCSI]     [Linux Hams]
  Powered by Linux