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:   Fri, 19 Oct 2018 16:49:48 +0100
From:   Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc:     Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Kristina Martsenko <kristina.martsenko@arm.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Jones <drjones@redhat.com>,
        Jacob Bramley <jacob.bramley@arm.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>,
        Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>,
        Adam Wallis <awallis@codeaurora.org>,
        "Suzuki K . Poulose" <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
        Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@arm.com>,
        kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu,
        Ramana Radhakrishnan <ramana.radhakrishnan@arm.com>,
        Amit Kachhap <Amit.Kachhap@arm.com>,
        Dave P Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@openvz.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 07/17] arm64: add basic pointer authentication support
Message-ID: <20181019154948.GD16771@arm.com>
References: <20181005084754.20950-1-kristina.martsenko@arm.com>
 <20181005084754.20950-8-kristina.martsenko@arm.com>
 <20181019111542.6wrvjguirglzg7vg@mbp>
 <20181019112404.GD14246@arm.com>
 <CAGXu5j+2axuzPJji_eCvMZDiPvrPsP3kAnG0CY_rsL5c=uFQFA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAGXu5j+2axuzPJji_eCvMZDiPvrPsP3kAnG0CY_rsL5c=uFQFA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 08:36:45AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 4:24 AM, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote:
> > FWIW: I think we should be entertaining a prctl() interface to use a new
> > key on a per-thread basis. Obviously, this would need to be used with care
> > (e.g. you'd fork(); use the prctl() and then you'd better not return from
> > the calling function!).
> >
> > Assuming we want this (Kees -- I was under the impression that everything in
> > Android would end up with the same key otherwise?), then the question is
> > do we want:
> >
> >   - prctl() get/set operations for the key, or
> >   - prctl() set_random_key operation, or
> >   - both of the above?
> >
> > Part of the answer to that may lie in the requirements of CRIU, where I
> > strongly suspect they need explicit get/set operations, although these
> > could be gated on CONFIG_CHECKPOINT_RESTORE=y.
> 
> Oh CRIU. Yikes. I'd like the get/set to be gated by the CONFIG, yes.
> No reason to allow explicit access to the key (and selected algo) if
> we don't have to.

Makes sense.

> As for per-thread or not, having a "pick a new key now" prctl() sounds
> good, but I'd like to have an eye toward having it just be "automatic"
> on clone().

I thought about that too, but we're out of clone() flags afaict and there's
no arch hook in there. We could add yet another clone syscall, but yuck (and
I reckon viro would kill us).

Or are you saying that we could infer the behaviour from the existing set
of flags?

Will