On Fri, May 03, 2024 at 02:01:35PM +0100, Joey Gouly wrote:
> Implement the PKEYS interface, using the Permission Overlay Extension.
>
> Signed-off-by: Joey Gouly
> Cc: Catalin Marinas
> Cc: Will Deacon
> ---
> arch/arm64/include/asm/mmu.h | 1 +
> arch/arm64/include/asm/mmu_context.
On 5/3/24 18:31, Joey Gouly wrote:
> Implement the PKEYS interface, using the Permission Overlay Extension.
This commit message should contain some more details here considering
the amount of code change proposed in this patch.
>
> Signed-off-by: Joey Gouly
> Cc: Catalin Marinas
> Cc: Will Dea
On 05/07/2024 18:59, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Fri, May 03, 2024 at 02:01:35PM +0100, Joey Gouly wrote:
>> @@ -163,7 +182,8 @@ static inline pteval_t __phys_to_pte_val(phys_addr_t
>> phys)
>> #define pte_access_permitted_no_overlay(pte, write) \
>> (((pte_val(pte) & (PTE_VALID | PTE_USER))
The 07/11/2024 10:50, Joey Gouly wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 08, 2024 at 06:53:18PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 03:51:35PM +0100, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> > > to me it makes sense to have abstract
> > >
> > > PKEY_DISABLE_READ
> > > PKEY_DISABLE_WRITE
> > > PKEY_DISABLE_EXECUT
On 7/9/24 18:37, Kevin Brodsky wrote:
> On 03/05/2024 15:01, Joey Gouly wrote:
>> @@ -267,6 +294,28 @@ static inline unsigned long mm_untag_mask(struct
>> mm_struct *mm)
>> return -1UL >> 8;
>> }
>>
>> +/*
>> + * We only want to enforce protection keys on the current process
>> + * beca
On Mon, Jul 08, 2024 at 06:53:18PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> Hi Szabolcs,
>
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 03:51:35PM +0100, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> > The 06/17/2024 15:40, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > > >> A user can still set it by interacting with the register directly, but
> > > >> I guess
> > >
On 03/05/2024 15:01, Joey Gouly wrote:
> @@ -267,6 +294,28 @@ static inline unsigned long mm_untag_mask(struct
> mm_struct *mm)
> return -1UL >> 8;
> }
>
> +/*
> + * We only want to enforce protection keys on the current process
> + * because we effectively have no access to POR_EL0 for o
* Szabolcs Nagy:
>> However, does it matter much? That's only for the initial setup, the
>> user can then change the permissions directly via the sysreg. So maybe
>> we don't need all those combinations upfront. A PKEY_DISABLE_EXECUTE
>> together with the full PKEY_DISABLE_ACCESS would probably su
The 07/08/2024 18:53, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> Hi Szabolcs,
>
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 03:51:35PM +0100, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> > The 06/17/2024 15:40, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > > >> A user can still set it by interacting with the register directly, but
> > > >> I guess
> > > >> we want somethin
Hi Szabolcs,
On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 03:51:35PM +0100, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> The 06/17/2024 15:40, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > >> A user can still set it by interacting with the register directly, but I
> > >> guess
> > >> we want something for the glibc interface..
> > >>
> > >> Dave, any though
On Fri, May 03, 2024 at 02:01:35PM +0100, Joey Gouly wrote:
> @@ -163,7 +182,8 @@ static inline pteval_t __phys_to_pte_val(phys_addr_t phys)
> #define pte_access_permitted_no_overlay(pte, write) \
> (((pte_val(pte) & (PTE_VALID | PTE_USER)) == (PTE_VALID | PTE_USER)) &&
> (!(write) || pte_w
The 06/17/2024 15:40, Florian Weimer wrote:
> >> A user can still set it by interacting with the register directly, but I
> >> guess
> >> we want something for the glibc interface..
> >>
> >> Dave, any thoughts here?
> >
> > adding Florian too, since i found an old thread of his that tried
> > to
* Szabolcs Nagy:
>> A user can still set it by interacting with the register directly, but I
>> guess
>> we want something for the glibc interface..
>>
>> Dave, any thoughts here?
>
> adding Florian too, since i found an old thread of his that tried
> to add separate PKEY_DISABLE_READ and PKEY_D
The 05/31/2024 16:21, Joey Gouly wrote:
> Hi Szabolcs,
>
> On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 03:57:07PM +0100, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> > The 05/03/2024 14:01, Joey Gouly wrote:
> > > Implement the PKEYS interface, using the Permission Overlay Extension.
> > ...
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_PKEYS
> > > +int
Hi Szabolcs,
On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 03:57:07PM +0100, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> The 05/03/2024 14:01, Joey Gouly wrote:
> > Implement the PKEYS interface, using the Permission Overlay Extension.
> ...
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_PKEYS
> > +int arch_set_user_pkey_access(struct task_struct *tsk, int p
The 05/03/2024 14:01, Joey Gouly wrote:
> Implement the PKEYS interface, using the Permission Overlay Extension.
...
> +#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_PKEYS
> +int arch_set_user_pkey_access(struct task_struct *tsk, int pkey, unsigned
> long init_val)
> +{
> + u64 new_por = POE_RXW;
> + u64 old_por
On 5/3/24 18:31, Joey Gouly wrote:
Implement the PKEYS interface, using the Permission Overlay Extension.
Signed-off-by: Joey Gouly
Cc: Catalin Marinas
Cc: Will Deacon
---
arch/arm64/include/asm/mmu.h | 1 +
arch/arm64/include/asm/mmu_context.h | 51 -
arch/arm64
Hi Amit,
Thanks for taking a look!
On Tue, May 28, 2024 at 12:25:58PM +0530, Amit Daniel Kachhap wrote:
>
>
> On 5/3/24 18:31, Joey Gouly wrote:
> > Implement the PKEYS interface, using the Permission Overlay Extension.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Joey Gouly
> > Cc: Catalin Marinas
> > Cc: Will D
Implement the PKEYS interface, using the Permission Overlay Extension.
Signed-off-by: Joey Gouly
Cc: Catalin Marinas
Cc: Will Deacon
---
arch/arm64/include/asm/mmu.h | 1 +
arch/arm64/include/asm/mmu_context.h | 51 -
arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h | 22 +-
ar
19 matches
Mail list logo
