From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1751673AbeCNOT2 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Wed, 14 Mar 2018 10:19:28 -0400
Received: from mga18.intel.com ([134.134.136.126]:62612 "EHLO mga18.intel.com"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1751302AbeCNOTZ (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Wed, 14 Mar 2018 10:19:25 -0400
X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message)
X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.47,470,1515484800";
   d="scan'208";a="33797867"
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1 v2] x86: pkey-mprotect must allow pkey-0
To: Ram Pai <linuxram@us.ibm.com>, mingo@redhat.com
References: <1521013574-27041-1-git-send-email-linuxram@us.ibm.com>
Cc: mpe@ellerman.id.au, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        x86@kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        benh@kernel.crashing.org, paulus@samba.org,
        khandual@linux.vnet.ibm.com, aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
        bsingharora@gmail.com, hbabu@us.ibm.com, mhocko@kernel.org,
        bauerman@linux.vnet.ibm.com, ebiederm@xmission.com, corbet@lwn.net,
        arnd@arndb.de, fweimer@redhat.com, msuchanek@suse.com
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
Message-ID: <18b155e3-07e9-5a4b-1f95-e1667078438c@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 07:19:23 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1521013574-27041-1-git-send-email-linuxram@us.ibm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 03/14/2018 12:46 AM, Ram Pai wrote:
> Once an address range is associated with an allocated pkey, it cannot be
> reverted back to key-0. There is no valid reason for the above behavior.  On
> the contrary applications need the ability to do so.

I'm trying to remember why we cared in the first place. :)

Could you add that to the changelog, please?

> @@ -92,7 +92,8 @@ int mm_pkey_alloc(struct mm_struct *mm)
>  static inline
>  int mm_pkey_free(struct mm_struct *mm, int pkey)
>  {
> -	if (!mm_pkey_is_allocated(mm, pkey))
> +	/* pkey 0 is special and can never be freed */
> +	if (!pkey || !mm_pkey_is_allocated(mm, pkey))
>  		return -EINVAL;

If an app was being really careful, couldn't it free up all of the
implicitly-pkey-0-assigned memory so that it is not in use at all?  In
that case, we might want to allow this.

On the other hand, nobody is likely to _ever_ actually do this so this
is good shoot-yourself-in-the-foot protection.