All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Shi, Yang" <yang.shi@linaro.org>
To: Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.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 22:23:16 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5660C0D4.8050800@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20151203203809.GA15235@ravnborg.org>

On 12/3/2015 12:38 PM, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> 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.

Thanks for pointing it out. And, I didn't notice that gup is just built 
for SPARC64. I though it is built by both 64 bit and 32 bit.

A follow-up question, is there any reason to just have sparc specific 
fast gup for 64 bit not for 32 bit?

>
>
>>
>>   	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.

I'm supposed this is used to protect the overflow. I copied the code 
from other arch. Actually, every arch has this except sparc.

Thanks,
Yang

>
> 	Sam
>


WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Shi, Yang" <yang.shi@linaro.org>
To: Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.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 14:23:16 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5660C0D4.8050800@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20151203203809.GA15235@ravnborg.org>

On 12/3/2015 12:38 PM, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> 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.

Thanks for pointing it out. And, I didn't notice that gup is just built 
for SPARC64. I though it is built by both 64 bit and 32 bit.

A follow-up question, is there any reason to just have sparc specific 
fast gup for 64 bit not for 32 bit?

>
>
>>
>>   	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.

I'm supposed this is used to protect the overflow. I copied the code 
from other arch. Actually, every arch has this except sparc.

Thanks,
Yang

>
> 	Sam
>


  reply	other threads:[~2015-12-03 22:23 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
2015-12-03 20:38     ` Sam Ravnborg
2015-12-03 22:23     ` Shi, Yang [this message]
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=5660C0D4.8050800@linaro.org \
    --to=yang.shi@linaro.org \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=sam@ravnborg.org \
    --cc=sparclinux@vger.kernel.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.