Re: [PATCH 11/25] powerpc: introduce execute-only pkey
From: Balbir Singh <bsingharora@gmail.com>
Date: 2017-10-18 23:02:24
On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 13:57:39 -0700 Ram Pai [off-list ref] wrote:
On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 03:15:22PM +1100, Balbir Singh wrote:quoted
On Fri, 8 Sep 2017 15:44:59 -0700 Ram Pai [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
This patch provides the implementation of execute-only pkey. The architecture-independent layer expects the arch-dependent layer, to support the ability to create and enable a special key which has execute-only permission. Signed-off-by: Ram Pai <redacted> --- arch/powerpc/include/asm/book3s/64/mmu.h | 1 + arch/powerpc/include/asm/pkeys.h | 9 ++++- arch/powerpc/mm/pkeys.c | 57 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 3 files changed, 66 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/book3s/64/mmu.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/book3s/64/mmu.h index 55950f4..ee18ba0 100644 --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/book3s/64/mmu.h +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/book3s/64/mmu.h@@ -115,6 +115,7 @@ struct patb_entry { * bit unset -> key available for allocation */ u32 pkey_allocation_map; + s16 execute_only_pkey; /* key holding execute-only protection */ #endif } mm_context_t;diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/pkeys.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/pkeys.h index 78c5362..0cf115f 100644 --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/pkeys.h +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/pkeys.h@@ -115,11 +115,16 @@ static inline int mm_pkey_free(struct mm_struct *mm, int pkey) * Try to dedicate one of the protection keys to be used as an * execute-only protection key. */ +extern int __execute_only_pkey(struct mm_struct *mm); static inline int execute_only_pkey(struct mm_struct *mm) { - return 0; + if (!pkey_inited || !pkey_execute_disable_support) + return -1; + + return __execute_only_pkey(mm); } + static inline int arch_override_mprotect_pkey(struct vm_area_struct *vma, int prot, int pkey) {@@ -141,6 +146,8 @@ static inline void pkey_mm_init(struct mm_struct *mm) if (!pkey_inited) return; mm_pkey_allocation_map(mm) = initial_allocation_mask; + /* -1 means unallocated or invalid */ + mm->context.execute_only_pkey = -1; } extern void thread_pkey_regs_save(struct thread_struct *thread);diff --git a/arch/powerpc/mm/pkeys.c b/arch/powerpc/mm/pkeys.c index 7cd1be4..8a24983 100644 --- a/arch/powerpc/mm/pkeys.c +++ b/arch/powerpc/mm/pkeys.c@@ -188,3 +188,60 @@ void thread_pkey_regs_init(struct thread_struct *thread) write_iamr(0x0ul); write_uamor(0x0ul); } + +static inline bool pkey_allows_readwrite(int pkey) +{ + int pkey_shift = pkeyshift(pkey); + + if (!(read_uamor() & (0x3UL << pkey_shift))) + return true;If uamor for key 0 is 0x10 for example or 0x01 it's a bug. The above check might miss it.The specs says both the bits corresponding to a key are set or reset, cannot be anything else.
I agree, thats why I said it's a bug if the values are such. Do we care to validate that both bits are the same? Balbir Singh.