From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A61F0C04AB4 for ; Fri, 17 May 2019 16:40:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 773772082E for ; Fri, 17 May 2019 16:40:34 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=chromium.org header.i=@chromium.org header.b="b9XzwC9Q" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726452AbfEQQke (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 May 2019 12:40:34 -0400 Received: from mail-pl1-f177.google.com ([209.85.214.177]:41943 "EHLO mail-pl1-f177.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725954AbfEQQkd (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 May 2019 12:40:33 -0400 Received: by mail-pl1-f177.google.com with SMTP id f12so3583716plt.8 for ; Fri, 17 May 2019 09:40:33 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=chromium.org; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=4baC9hVmPvCMRjjnr6WrMvdeGCowj8DhAHmgc2PUmc8=; b=b9XzwC9QDGBg9qLVMgJWRML5ZZz5Kd9Me3loTz5rnrV+Gm+nteKj0X6uqTPOiPnXUu AD7VHIV6giGlxx5J7w4vopdCZSjd47gFjQ9n+/adpvlKujkJMtOb2XKfI408I29n0AnW 96QnHtqye/BCD+PLwXdbtsaFDBqofGB940e0E= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=4baC9hVmPvCMRjjnr6WrMvdeGCowj8DhAHmgc2PUmc8=; b=XoBhuOMsqAbwsRgnQc30Sfx1W/RL3+el/9smELkXp9V9S/kzeeqAklgFzHV85LituX e5owAS8UP4Kk1mmtE0CDTSVtKAB0p8Cb6xSrWCB+b6rcXWBHbSxraVe89yufjXWRwI9u COOG1UTEeetbO901pw2t1A5wiO2pC3g3kWRfulviuQAmUGzpHgvwsrrIc+n3YIg+MXGM eclZnj4///nTobM8qiGT5yzrFiDRKeKaukKS8O+8l2RmqJDJ+UW6AQWxvdEs8kYsC9ik m9I4vcwtrvBzMoA5OlP8Q11j9BjLb4BgO0W2ANA0AiKUEm4pVoRAF6t3aO1EmiJ5Fl4b xRtA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWsygw8m7Ug8//OrZ1f/VR6JHFu26OzmuhQ8amcuZKrK2LOLJRf qFZl6DNe/LItdE4oOqxVE8RlPw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxT4MWydQqGVRl8y+8BCJCWqRoi8v5dpo8YXASLwcoHuift9vY3I4Y0ejr9OwtLsAO8IKoMAA== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:778d:: with SMTP id o13mr1115077pll.275.1558111233247; Fri, 17 May 2019 09:40:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from www.outflux.net (smtp.outflux.net. [198.145.64.163]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d186sm14225137pfd.183.2019.05.17.09.40.32 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Fri, 17 May 2019 09:40:32 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 17 May 2019 09:40:31 -0700 From: Kees Cook To: David Laight Cc: 'Jan Kara' , Dan Williams , "linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org" , "stable@vger.kernel.org" , Jeff Moyer , Ingo Molnar , Christoph Hellwig , Al Viro , Thomas Gleixner , Matthew Wilcox , Jeff Smits , "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH] libnvdimm/pmem: Bypass CONFIG_HARDENED_USERCOPY overhead Message-ID: <201905170938.99AACF0D@keescook> References: <155805321833.867447.3864104616303535270.stgit@dwillia2-desk3.amr.corp.intel.com> <20190517084739.GB20550@quack2.suse.cz> <2d8b1ba7890940bf8a512d4eef0d99b3@AcuMS.aculab.com> <201905170845.1B4E2A03@keescook> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 04:14:03PM +0000, David Laight wrote: > From: Kees Cook > > Sent: 17 May 2019 16:54 > ... > > > I've changed some of our code to use __get_user() to avoid > > > these stupid overheads. > > > > __get_user() skips even access_ok() checking too, so that doesn't seem > > like a good idea. Did you run access_ok() checks separately? (This > > generally isn't recommended.) > > Of course, I'm not THAT stupid :-) Right, yes, I know. :) I just wanted to double-check since accidents can happen. The number of underscores on these function is not really a great way to indicate what they're doing. ;) -- Kees Cook