Re: [PATCH 2/2] kfence: only handle kernel mode faults

[Sven Schnelle <svens@linux.ibm.com>]

Marco Elver <elver@google.com> writes:

> On Fri, 14 May 2021 at 11:22, Sven Schnelle <svens@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Sven Schnelle <svens@linux.ibm.com>
>> ---
>>  mm/kfence/core.c | 3 +++
>>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/kfence/core.c b/mm/kfence/core.c
>> index bc15e3cb71d5..161df492750c 100644
>> --- a/mm/kfence/core.c
>> +++ b/mm/kfence/core.c
>> @@ -813,6 +813,9 @@ bool kfence_handle_page_fault(unsigned long addr, bool is_write, struct pt_regs
>>         enum kfence_error_type error_type;
>>         unsigned long flags;
>>
>> +       if (user_mode(regs))
>> +               return false;
>> +
>
> I don't think it's required on all architectures, correct? If so, I
> think this should be part of the arch-specific code, i.e. just do "if
> (user_mode(regs) && kfence_handle_page_fault(...))" or similar.
> Because otherwise we'll wonder in future why we ever needed this, and
> e.g. determine it's useless and remove it again. ;-) Either that, or a
> comment. But I'd prefer to just keep it in the arch-specific code if
> required, because it seems to be the exception rather than the norm.

Ok, that's fine, i add it to our code then.

Thanks
Sven