From: Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>
To: Yang Shi <yang.shi@linaro.org>
Cc: davem@davemloft.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org
Subject: Re: [V2 PATCH] sparc64/gup: check address scope legitimacy
Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2015 20:38:10 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20151203203809.GA15235@ravnborg.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1448491543-17946-1-git-send-email-yang.shi@linaro.org>
Hi Yang.
On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 02:45:43PM -0800, Yang Shi wrote:
> Check if user address is accessible in atomic version __get_user_pages_fast()
> before walking the page table.
> And, check if end > start in get_user_pages_fast(), otherwise fallback to slow
> path.
Two different but related things in one patch is often a bad thing.
It would have been better to split it up.
>
> Signed-off-by: Yang Shi <yang.shi@linaro.org>
> ---
> Just found slow_irqon label is not defined, added it to avoid compile error.
>
> arch/sparc/mm/gup.c | 7 ++++++-
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/sparc/mm/gup.c b/arch/sparc/mm/gup.c
> index 2e5c4fc..cf4fb47 100644
> --- a/arch/sparc/mm/gup.c
> +++ b/arch/sparc/mm/gup.c
> @@ -173,6 +173,9 @@ int __get_user_pages_fast(unsigned long start, int nr_pages, int write,
> addr = start;
> len = (unsigned long) nr_pages << PAGE_SHIFT;
> end = start + len;
> + if (unlikely(!access_ok(write ? VERIFY_WRITE : VERIFY_READ,
> + (void __user *)start, len)))
> + return 0;
This change is not justified.
Why would we take the time to first do the access_ok() stuff.
If this had been an expensive operation then we had made this function
slower in the normal case ( assuming there were no access violations in the
normal case).
When I look at the implementation of access_ok() I get the impression that
this is not really a check we need.
access_ok() always returns 1.
>
> local_irq_save(flags);
> pgdp = pgd_offset(mm, addr);
> @@ -203,6 +206,8 @@ int get_user_pages_fast(unsigned long start, int nr_pages, int write,
> addr = start;
> len = (unsigned long) nr_pages << PAGE_SHIFT;
> end = start + len;
> + if (end < start)
> + goto slow_irqon;
end can only be smaller than start if there is some overflow.
See how end is calculated just the line above.
This looks like a highly suspicious change.
Sam
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>
To: Yang Shi <yang.shi@linaro.org>
Cc: davem@davemloft.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org
Subject: Re: [V2 PATCH] sparc64/gup: check address scope legitimacy
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 21:38:10 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20151203203809.GA15235@ravnborg.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1448491543-17946-1-git-send-email-yang.shi@linaro.org>
Hi Yang.
On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 02:45:43PM -0800, Yang Shi wrote:
> Check if user address is accessible in atomic version __get_user_pages_fast()
> before walking the page table.
> And, check if end > start in get_user_pages_fast(), otherwise fallback to slow
> path.
Two different but related things in one patch is often a bad thing.
It would have been better to split it up.
>
> Signed-off-by: Yang Shi <yang.shi@linaro.org>
> ---
> Just found slow_irqon label is not defined, added it to avoid compile error.
>
> arch/sparc/mm/gup.c | 7 ++++++-
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/sparc/mm/gup.c b/arch/sparc/mm/gup.c
> index 2e5c4fc..cf4fb47 100644
> --- a/arch/sparc/mm/gup.c
> +++ b/arch/sparc/mm/gup.c
> @@ -173,6 +173,9 @@ int __get_user_pages_fast(unsigned long start, int nr_pages, int write,
> addr = start;
> len = (unsigned long) nr_pages << PAGE_SHIFT;
> end = start + len;
> + if (unlikely(!access_ok(write ? VERIFY_WRITE : VERIFY_READ,
> + (void __user *)start, len)))
> + return 0;
This change is not justified.
Why would we take the time to first do the access_ok() stuff.
If this had been an expensive operation then we had made this function
slower in the normal case ( assuming there were no access violations in the
normal case).
When I look at the implementation of access_ok() I get the impression that
this is not really a check we need.
access_ok() always returns 1.
>
> local_irq_save(flags);
> pgdp = pgd_offset(mm, addr);
> @@ -203,6 +206,8 @@ int get_user_pages_fast(unsigned long start, int nr_pages, int write,
> addr = start;
> len = (unsigned long) nr_pages << PAGE_SHIFT;
> end = start + len;
> + if (end < start)
> + goto slow_irqon;
end can only be smaller than start if there is some overflow.
See how end is calculated just the line above.
This looks like a highly suspicious change.
Sam
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-12-03 20:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-11-25 22:31 [PATCH] sparc64/gup: check address scope legitimacy Yang Shi
2015-11-25 22:31 ` Yang Shi
2015-11-25 22:45 ` [V2 PATCH] " Yang Shi
2015-11-25 22:45 ` Yang Shi
2015-12-03 20:38 ` Sam Ravnborg [this message]
2015-12-03 20:38 ` Sam Ravnborg
2015-12-03 22:23 ` Shi, Yang
2015-12-03 22:23 ` Shi, Yang
2015-12-05 9:59 ` Sam Ravnborg
2015-12-05 9:59 ` Sam Ravnborg
2015-11-26 0:26 ` [PATCH] " kbuild test robot
2015-11-26 0:26 ` kbuild test robot
2015-11-26 0:31 ` Shi, Yang
2015-11-26 0:31 ` Shi, Yang
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20151203203809.GA15235@ravnborg.org \
--to=sam@ravnborg.org \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sparclinux@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=yang.shi@linaro.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.