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:   Sun, 18 Mar 2018 16:46:42 -0700
From:   Ram Pai <linuxram@us.ibm.com>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        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
Reply-To: Ram Pai <linuxram@us.ibm.com>
References: <20180316214654.895E24EC@viggo.jf.intel.com>
 <20180316214656.0E059008@viggo.jf.intel.com>
 <20180317232425.GH1060@ram.oc3035372033.ibm.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.1803181029220.1509@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1803181029220.1509@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-12-10)
Message-Id: <20180318234642.GI1060@ram.oc3035372033.ibm.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 10:30:48AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Mar 2018, Ram Pai wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 02:46:56PM -0700, 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.
> > 
> > So your proposal 
> > (a) allocates pkey 0 implicitly, 
> > (b) does not stop anyone from freeing pkey-0
> > (c) and allows pkey-0 to be explicitly associated with any address range.
> > correct?
> > 
> > My proposal
> > (a) allocates pkey 0 implicitly, 
> > (b) stops anyone from freeing pkey-0
> > (c) and allows pkey-0 to be explicitly associated with any address range.
> > 
> > So the difference between the two proposals is just the freeing part i.e (b).
> > Did I get this right?
> 
> Yes, and that's consistent with the other pkeys.
> 

ok.

Yes it makes pkey-0 even more consistent with the other keys, but not
entirely consistent.  pkey-0 still has the priviledge of being
allocated by default.


RP