Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] m68k: Handle __generic_copy_to_user faults more carefully

Finn Thain
2024-08-08T06:56:51Z

On Thu, 8 Aug 2024, Greg Ungerer wrote:

> On 8/8/24 11:57, Finn Thain wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I'm afraid I've lost track of where we're at with this patch series.
> > > Does it need more work, or more bug reports such as the one below?
> >
> > Apparently the series is waiting for some testing on a Coldfire system
> > with MMU.
>
> Ok, I am in a state that I can do that now (I managed to fix my M5475EVB
> board).

Thanks, Greg.

> If I test the v4 versions of this patch set that should do the job?
>

There are 3 patches that need some more testing, one from me and two from
Michael:

[PATCH] m68k: Handle put_user() faults more carefully
[PATCH v4 1/2] m68k: Handle __generic_copy_to_user faults more carefully
[PATCH v4 2/2] m68k: improve __constant_copy_to_user_asm() fault handling

They were posted in two threads:

https://lore.kernel.org/linux-m68k/1ed9c4c753395510c1a8df9c35e2ad4c31c90f95.1714265926.git.fthain@linux-m68k.org/T/
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-m68k/CAMuHMdVrOnOQwCxk42YCjEkbfL-YDSvpf_xTaouv9hUs2bO+qg@mail.gmail.com/T/

On 680x0, one of the bugs was brought to light with 'stress-ng
--sysbadaddr -1'. The others required special test programs.

I've no idea whether Coldfire silicon is susceptable at all, and if it is,
whether the same reproducers would work. But that's neither here nor there
from a regression testing standpoint.