Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Sat, 17 Mar 2018 10:12:15 +0100 (CET)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linuxram@us.ibm.com, dave.hansen@intel.com, mpe@ellerman.id.au,
        mingo@kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, shuah@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] x86, pkeys: do not special case protection key 0
In-Reply-To: <20180316214656.0E059008@viggo.jf.intel.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1803171011100.1509@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
References: <20180316214654.895E24EC@viggo.jf.intel.com> <20180316214656.0E059008@viggo.jf.intel.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (DEB 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 16 Mar 2018, Dave Hansen wrote:

> 
> From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
> 
> mm_pkey_is_allocated() treats pkey 0 as unallocated.  That is
> inconsistent with the manpages, and also inconsistent with
> mm->context.pkey_allocation_map.  Stop special casing it and only
> disallow values that are actually bad (< 0).
> 
> The end-user visible effect of this is that you can now use
> mprotect_pkey() to set pkey=0.
> 
> This is a bit nicer than what Ram proposed because it is simpler
> and removes special-casing for pkey 0.  On the other hand, it does
> allow applciations to pkey_free() pkey-0, but that's just a silly
> thing to do, so we are not going to protect against it.

What's the consequence of that? Application crashing and burning itself or
something more subtle?

Thanks,

	tglx