From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
To: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
Steve Capper <steve.capper@linaro.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc: Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux NFS Mailing List <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>,
ceph-devel <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>,
lustre-devel@lists.lustre.org,
V9FS Developers <v9fs-developer@lists.sourceforge.net>,
Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] iov_iter: allow iov_iter_get_pages_alloc to allocate more pages per call
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2017 11:28:48 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFwXKPUoZ3R4ey03L6ksXCmGLNS=16aQ7gRO1=VXCMZx-A@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170203190816.GK27291@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 11:08 AM, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>
> On x86 it does. I don't see anything equivalent in mm/gup.c one, and the
> only kinda-sorta similar thing (access_ok() in __get_user_pages_fast()
> there) is vulnerable to e.g. access via kernel_write().
Yeah, access_ok() is bogus. It needs to just check against TASK_SIZE
or whatever.
> doesn't look promising - access_ok() is never sufficient. Something like
> _PAGE_USER tests in x86 one solves that problem, but if anything similar
> works for HAVE_GENERIC_RCU_GUP I don't see it. Thus the question re
> what am I missing here...
Ok, I definitely agree that it looks like __get_user_pages_fast() just
needs to get rid of the access_ok() and replace it with a proper check
for the user address space range.
Looks like arm[64] and powerpc.are the current users. Adding in some
people involved with the original submission a few years ago.
I do note that the x86 __get_user_pages_fast() thing looks dodgy too.
In particular, we do it right in the *real* get_user_pages_fast(), see
commit 7f8189068726 ("x86: don't use 'access_ok()' as a range check in
get_user_pages_fast()"). But then the same bug was re-introduced when
the "irq safe" version was merged. As well as in the GENERIC_RCU_GUP
version.
Gaah. Apparently PeterZ copied the old buggy version before the fix
when he added __get_user_pages_fast() in commit 465a454f254e ("x86,
mm: Add __get_user_pages_fast()").
I guess it could be considered a merge error (both happened during the
2.6.31 merge window).
Linus
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-02-03 19:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 45+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-01-24 21:23 [PATCH] iov_iter: allow iov_iter_get_pages_alloc to allocate more pages per call Jeff Layton
2017-01-25 13:32 ` [PATCH v3 0/2] " Jeff Layton
2017-01-25 13:32 ` [PATCH v3 1/2] " Jeff Layton
2017-01-26 12:35 ` Jeff Layton
2017-01-27 13:24 ` [PATCH v4 0/2] " Jeff Layton
2017-01-27 13:24 ` [PATCH v4 1/2] " Jeff Layton
2017-01-27 13:24 ` [PATCH v4 2/2] ceph: switch DIO code to use iov_iter_get_pages_alloc Jeff Layton
2017-01-30 15:40 ` Jeff Layton
2017-01-25 13:32 ` [PATCH v3 " Jeff Layton
2017-02-02 9:51 ` [PATCH v3 0/2] iov_iter: allow iov_iter_get_pages_alloc to allocate more pages per call Al Viro
2017-02-02 10:56 ` Christoph Hellwig
2017-02-02 11:16 ` Al Viro
2017-02-02 13:00 ` Jeff Layton
2017-02-03 7:29 ` Al Viro
2017-02-03 18:29 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-02-03 19:08 ` Al Viro
2017-02-03 19:28 ` Linus Torvalds [this message]
2017-02-13 9:56 ` Steve Capper
2017-02-13 21:40 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-02-03 7:49 ` Christoph Hellwig
2017-02-03 8:54 ` Al Viro
2017-02-03 11:09 ` Christoph Hellwig
2017-02-02 14:48 ` Jan Kara
2017-02-02 18:28 ` Al Viro
2017-02-03 14:47 ` Jan Kara
2017-02-04 3:08 ` Al Viro
2017-02-04 19:26 ` Al Viro
2017-02-04 22:12 ` Miklos Szeredi
2017-02-04 22:11 ` Miklos Szeredi
2017-02-05 1:51 ` Al Viro
2017-02-05 20:15 ` Miklos Szeredi
2017-02-05 21:01 ` Al Viro
2017-02-05 21:19 ` Miklos Szeredi
2017-02-05 22:04 ` Al Viro
2017-02-06 3:05 ` Al Viro
2017-02-06 9:08 ` Miklos Szeredi
2017-02-06 9:57 ` Al Viro
2017-02-06 14:18 ` Miklos Szeredi
2017-02-07 7:19 ` Al Viro
2017-02-07 11:35 ` Miklos Szeredi
2017-02-08 5:54 ` Al Viro
2017-02-08 9:53 ` Miklos Szeredi
2017-02-06 8:37 ` Miklos Szeredi
2017-02-05 20:56 ` Al Viro
2017-02-16 13:10 ` Jeff Layton
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='CA+55aFwXKPUoZ3R4ey03L6ksXCmGLNS=16aQ7gRO1=VXCMZx-A@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=chris@chris-wilson.co.uk \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=hughd@google.com \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=jlayton@redhat.com \
--cc=kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lustre-devel@lists.lustre.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=steve.capper@linaro.org \
--cc=v9fs-developer@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/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).