MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <56747360.3040909@zytor.com>
References: <CALCETrVw2V+Ny7=D=_E2m0Qa_v7Bp8GUjhyDXx_bWC35R2ohjg@mail.gmail.com>
 <56736BD1.5080700@linux.intel.com> <CALCETrWBjvTiVBPc098cGSH2vdezvdg-i6N4kZjgdcPT7uXoiQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <5673750B.606@linux.intel.com> <CALCETrWMofAX8TbZNyPaCWUHqcE85wpehDR05irEPtTYiVMXRA@mail.gmail.com>
 <FEA53E3B-6AE2-4305-82B1-C57451B6E33E@zytor.com> <CALCETrU28FoOwR+n8U0Qtt20=ZW6rgc3=M8X4G0QMt1_ZVHY7Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <567453AF.5060808@linux.intel.com> <CALCETrU7TnbLSzOuGNmh=xDpa5W729RJSPdap2izXxagfg-biQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <56746774.8000707@linux.intel.com> <CA+55aFycMWxCVY1p8n_D8nGz7Ky35uAmZMWm=zE5LBsqModiBg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALCETrVWgFPTap_DNzP5vnrtyr7jjMwFHyRy=iY0amHrQ_euwg@mail.gmail.com> <56747360.3040909@zytor.com>
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 13:02:50 -0800
Message-ID: <CALCETrVsLX0vBKSRhC8WsbJvDSakPpP9+sPSPfaf22Mrm0a7yw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Rethinking sigcontext's xfeatures slightly for PKRU's benefit?
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1223
Lines: 29

On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 12:58 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> wrote:
> On 12/18/2015 12:49 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>
>> IOW, I like my idea in which signal delivery always sets PKRU to the
>> application-requested-by-syscall values and sigreturn restores it.
>> Kinda like sigaltstack, but applies to all signals and affects PKRU
>> instead of RSP.
>>
>
> I think this is the only sensible option, with the default being all zero.
>

Or not quite all zero if we do Dave's experimental PROT_EXEC thing.

Actually, I want to introduce a set of per-mm "incompatible" bits.  By
default, they'd be zero.  We can, as needed, define bits that do
something nice but break old code.  I want one of the bits to turn
vsyscalls off entirely.  Another bit could say that the kernel is
allowed to steal a protection key for PROT_EXEC.

These bits would be read and written by prctl, but there could also be
an ELF note mechanism to initialize them on execve without a syscall.

--Andy
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/