From: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC] regset ->get() API
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 23:29:29 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200220232929.GU23230@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wiKs7Q2DbP6kk8JQksb0nhUvAs2wO5cNdWirNEc3CM-YQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 02:56:28PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 2:47 PM Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 12:01:54PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> > > I don't mind it, but some of those buffers are big, and the generic
> > > code generally doesn't know how big.
> >
> > That's what regset_size() returns...
>
> Yes, but the code ends up being disgusting. You first have to call
> that indirect function just to get the size, then do a kmalloc, and
> then call another indirect function to actually fill it.
Umm... You do realize that this indirect function is a pathological
case, right? It has exactly one user - REGSET_SVE on arm64. Everything
else uses regset->n * regset->size.
> Don't do that. Not since we know how retpoline is a bad thing.
>
> And since the size isn't always some trivial constant (ie for x86 PFU
> it depends on the register state!), I think the only sane model is to
> change the interface even more, and just have the "get()" function not
> only get the data, but allocate the backing store too.
>
> So you'd never pass in the result pointer - you'd get a result area
> that you can then free.
>
> Hmm?
Do you want such allocations done in each ->get() instance? We have
a plenty of those instances...
> > FWIW, what I have in mind is to start with making copy_regset_to_user() do
> > buf = kmalloc(size, GFP_KERNEL);
> > if (!buf)
> > return -ENOMEM;
> > err = regset->get(target, regset, offset, size, buf, NULL);
>
> See above. This doesn't work. You don't know the size. And we don't
> have a known maximum size either.
We do know that caller does not want more than the value it has passed in
'size' argument, though. For existing ptrace requests it's either
min(iov->iov_len, regset->n * regset->size) (in ptrace_regset())
or an explicit constant (usually in arch_ptrace()). Note, BTW, that
regset_size() is used only by coredump - that's how much we allocate
there. Everybody else either looks like
case PTRACE_GETFPREGS: /* Get the child FPU state. */
return copy_regset_to_user(child,
task_user_regset_view(current),
REGSET_FP,
0, sizeof(struct user_i387_struct),
datap);
or does regset->n * regset->size.
FWIW, the real need to know the size is not in "how much do we allocated" -
it's "how much do we copy"; I _think_ everyone except that arm64 thing
fills exactly regset->n * regset->size (or we have a nasty infoleak in
coredumps) and we can switch coredump to "allocate regset->n * regset->size,
call ->get(), copy all of that into coredump unless ->get_size is there,
copy ->get_size() bytes to coredump if ->get_size exists" as the first
step.
Longer term I would have ->get() tell how much has it filled and killed
->get_size(). Again, there's only one user. But I'd prefer to do that
in the end of series, when the bodies of ->get() instances are cleaned
up...
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-02-20 23:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-02-17 18:33 [RFC] regset ->get() API Al Viro
2020-02-19 20:01 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-02-20 22:47 ` Al Viro
2020-02-20 22:56 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-02-20 22:56 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-02-20 23:29 ` Al Viro [this message]
2020-02-20 23:31 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-02-21 3:30 ` Al Viro
2020-02-21 18:59 ` Al Viro
2020-02-21 19:22 ` David Miller
2020-02-22 0:41 ` Al Viro
2020-04-13 4:32 ` David Miller
2020-04-13 4:32 ` David Miller
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=20200220232929.GU23230@ZenIV.linux.org.uk \
--to=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).